F72 
,N8 118 




COUNTY OF NORFOLK. 



Court fyoxist Ju»C0tigattou, 



COMMENTS 



COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 



AND OTHER MATTERS. 




Class i_ 12 



Book 



€l)c i£ourt t)ousc Jnucstigatien. 



COMMENTS 






THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 



AM) PORTIONS OF THE 

ARGUMENTS OF MESSRS. T. E. GROVER, AND 
R. M. MORSE; 

WITH Till 

REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT, 
W. H. HERRICK. 




DEDHAM, MASS. 

Transcript Steam Job Print 
189G. 



By transfer 

AUG 16 1906 



TO THE 



Citizens and Taxpayers of Norfolk County 



We present herewith portions of the opening argument of Mr. T. E. 
r, and of the closing argument of Mr. R. M. Morse, the report of 
mtant, W. II. Ilerriek, showing cost in detail of the Court House, 
and the findings of the Committee, with comments and testimony relat- 
ing thereto in the Xorfolk County Investigation before the Legislative 
Committee in 1896. 

OUR REASONS 

Fur presenting this report are : 

1st. Because the public press deliberately suppressed our good in- 
ns and magnified our faults. 

2d. Because the Committee, though giving the prosecution three 
weeks to present their case, gave us only two days for the like purpose. 
Because the Committee was either so prejudiced against us, or 
controlled by Mr. Storey, the counsel for the Committee, that his argu- 
ment became their report, and its findings demand refutation. 
PLAIN LANGUAGE. 

We have endeavored to use plain language, and also to give the 
people of Xorfolk County reliable information in the only way that it 
could reach them. 

\ joint special committee, it will be remembered, was appointed by 
the Legislature near the close of its session, to investigate the acts of 
the County Commissioners of Norfolk County since the year 1890. 

There were nine members on the Committee, no single one of whom 
heard all the testimony, and some of them heard but a small portion of 
it. When the testimony of the Commissioners was presented, a number 
of the members of the Committee absented themselves entirely, al- 
though they had been seen in the committee room occasionally up to 



thai time. For tin greater part of a day, while hearing the Commis- 
sioner's witnesses, only three of the committee were in their seats, and 
during Mr. Morse's argument only seven were present. One of these 
read a newspaper during most of the time of its delivery, ami one. 
was engaged in writing. As a sample of the conduct of the investiga- 
tion, we wish In refer to the fact that a large portion of a day was 
devoted to the examination of Mr. 1 hillings, to account for the addition 
of about s.",oo{o his estimate for gas fixtures, which was simply caused 
by additions of lam] is ami globes, after his estimate was accepted, which 
were not included in his original estimate, but not a single question was 
asked \\ hy M i\ Willcutt's estimate was reduced §2000 when the cont ract 
was made, probal ■: for fear that this might reflect some credit on 
the < oiiunissioners. 

Though the Committee were requested time and time again, both at 
the beginning of the investigation and during its progress, that 
specific charges lie filed against the Commissions, they refused to 
order it done, though on examination made by Mr. Fred Joy, associate 
counsel for the ( 'ommissioners, into the investigations had by different 
Legislatures for the preceding twenty-five years, no instance could be 
found but eit her specific charges were made in the order for investiga 
tion, or were ordered filed by the committee invest igat ing. 

ARBITRARY AU Til ORITY EX E R C I S ED. 

The Committee exercised an arbitrary authority such as was never 
before seen in this Commonwealth. It adopted the methods prevailing 
in Continental Europe, where a person suspected of a crime is brought 
before a tribunal and interrogated upon the theory that he must estab- 
lish his innocence against a presumption of guilt. Their method 
violated the plain provision of the constitution; for Article XII of the 
15 ill of Rights provides that "No subject shall be held to answer for 
any crimes or offence until the same is fully and plainly, substantially 
and formally described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evi- 
dence against himself; and every subject shall have a right to produce 
all proofs that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against 
him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself or his 
counsel at his election, and no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, dis- 
poned, or deprived of his property, immunities or privileges, put out of 
the protect ion of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty or estate, 
but h\ the judgment of Ins peers, or the law of the land." 

Respectable tradesmen, merchants and manufacturers, were ordered 
to produce their accounts, and in effect have their private affairs spread 
to the public, broadcast through the press. This violated that clause 
of the Massachusetts Bill of Bights, Art XIV., that " Every subject lias 
aright to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his 
person, his houses, Ins papers, and all his possessions.' 1 

One gentleman who refused to state what profit he had made on a 
dvnamo or engine, because having a large sale of those machines he 



did not want the world to know what its cost to him was, and 
because he had an agreement with the makers not in any case to 
give the cost to a customer, was summarily ordered to the Bar of the 
House for contempt. The merest novice knows that the way to prove 
the value of an article in a court of law is to show what the market 
value of that article is. The only possible question that could arise 
would be, did the County pay more than a fair market value":' The 
hearings before Legislative Committees are governed by the same law 
as prevails in courts as the Supreme Judicial Court has decided. They 
always have been before, but this Committee was a law unto itself, and 
the members felt authorized to set aside the decisions of the Supreme 
Judicial Court, and the provisions of the constitution itself, in their 
willingness to allow the reputation of certain men to be injured and 
the County of .Norfolk to be dishonored. The exception was that those 
who had chanced to have had difficulty with the Commissioners, and 
were evidently inimical to them, had their shortcomings carefully white- 
washed, their reputations fully vindicated, and they were treated with 
a consideration and politeness that would have lent a charm to a lady's 
tea table, while others, who happened to be on good terms witii the 
Commissioners, were assailed with questions, impudent in form, in- 
sulting in substance, and inadmissable in every respect, Respectable 
lawyers were denied the privilege of appearing to protect the reputa- 
tions of their clients who had been summoned as witnesses, and the 
Sergeant-at-Arms was summoned by the Chairman, who, in an angry 
tone, and with a violent demeanor, not at all in accordance with a 
judicial spirit, ordered him to eject Mr. Hamilton, one of the leaders of 
the Suffolk Bar, a lawyer of thirty years' practice and unimpeachable 
character, from the room. 

RECKLESS S TA TE3IENTS. 

Some days before the hearing closed, one member of the Committee, 
in a speech in the House of Representatives, publicly declared that there 
was no evidence to show that Mr. II. N". Bales was not then a partner 
of the chairman of the Commissioners, although it had been shown by 
both Mr. Bates and the chairman that that relation had never existed 
between them, and whatever relation had existed, ceased in 1S90. As 
this member was only occasionally present at the hearing, it is chari- 
table perhaps, to believe that he did not know what evidence had been 
introduced to contradict his assertion. But what confidence can the 
public have in a statement signed by one, who not knowing the facts, 
or taking pains to find out the truth, makes a reckless statement where 
prejudice rather than fair dealing is the sentiment that inspires him. 

Another member of the Committee upon that occasion declared that 
the evidence had to be drawn from the witnesses as with a corkscrew, 
and when so drawn it was only half the truth. ( 'ould a man with such 
a feeling render an unbiased judgment ? 



The i i account of tl >sc who had J ransaet eC 

missioncr ;amined by an expert sen! to their places of busi 

whose o one instance was deeidedh rude towards a. iacly book 

ke< per. N'ot only were the accounts with the Commission! rs examined, 
but the ' v pense, and profit and loss accounts, of their busi uerally 

were sn rigid scrutiny, and if on an\ of these accounts an 

appear^ Mum! on an instant be explain. >d, the books were de 

nullified before the Committee, and it was a rare instance when the man 
to whom L lii ' ■ 'ks belonged was not subjeci lo some insult or indignity. 
In one ca is charged with having altered bis books during the 

noon i , and another our of having erased a whole page of 

accounts bv ! he use of acids. 



FAB FROM THE TUFT II. 

The ( ' say ''at the beginning of the invest ig ition, the Com- 

missioners, while professing a willingness to help the Commiitee, took 
a positi resistance. They appear ounsel, they volunteered 

no stab ir accounts, they furnished no documents and papers 

except < h ere demanded, and during the whole inquin took 

the nttitu I n who proposed onh to answe: - the questions which 

were put to ;iml go no I'm 

No s a was evei farther from the truth, for the Commission- 

ers gave Ihc Committee even assistance in their power, as is clearly 
seen by the fol hi wing testimony of Mr. Morrell. 

Q. 15; ioi;i:v. Mr. Morrell, 1 wan; to m whether 

all th relating to the ivork done on the Dedham Court 

[louse, either in the way of improvement, of addition, or of repair, are 
on file '.' 

A. 1 : iiink " hey are, sir. 

(}. ho you know of any contracts which are not on tile '.' 

A. X< 

(>. A are I he} '.' 

A. I i iv of any. 

<,». \\ ! hey placed y 

A. \V reasurer. 

Q. V, Treasurer of die Coi it Are all the bids which 

\\ ere mad conl racls, on file '.' 

A . \ ic bids arc not. 

(.) V thex '.' 

\ has ihem. i think. 

: \ on, M r. < ! ro\ er, here a ' hich were 

made to racts '.' 

'.! Veil, 1 coul II look. 

()- I ven to Mr. < 



A. I think Mr. Morse has most of them. There may be bids for 
one or two contracts that are not— I don't know where they are. 

Mr Stokey. I should like to have those bids either restored to the 
records of the County Commissioners or placed in some position 
where they can be examined, and I want to be sure that those that are 
handed to me are all that exist. 

Q. Do you know of any bids which you have not handed to Mr. 
Morse ? 

A. Well, there are bids on two contracts that I don't know where 
they are. 

Q. What contracts are those ? 

A. For Mr. Franklin's and Mr. Whitcomb's. 

(These two contracts were made when Mr. Wiggin was chairman of 
the Board, and the bids for same had always been kept by him in his pri- 
vate possession, and were produced by him before the Committee. The 
inquiry is pertinent, why had not Mr. Wiggin left these bids at the Court 
House when his term of office finished ? 

Q. What was Mr. Franklin's contract for ? 

A. For heating. 

Q. And Mr. Whitcomb's ? 

A. The interior finish. 

Q. What was done with the bids after they were received? 

A. I couldn't say what was done with them. 

Q. You were the chairman of the County Commissioners ? 

A. Not at that time those bids were received. 

Q. There were various contracts made while you were chairman ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And various bids made for those contracts while you were chair- 
man ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What became of the bids that you received ? 

A. They are among the papers. 

Q. Have you ever looked to see whether the bids received for con- 
tracts made while you were a, member of the Hoard, and before you were 
chairman, are on the files of i\\f County Commissioners ? 

A. I have hunted for them but could not find them ; mislaid some- 
where. 

Q. Are all the vouchers, the bills showing how the money was ex- 
pended, are those in the hands of the County Treasurer? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So that the County Treasure)- has to-day a voucher for every 
dollar which was expended on the Court House? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there any record kept of the advertising for bids? 

A. I don't think there was. Possibly we maj have had a copy of 
the papers, but in moving they have been lost. 

Q. In moving? Let me ask you whether the records of the County 






Commissioners show in fact practically how the advertising should be 
made? 

A. I don't think it does. 

(>. Who took charge of that? A. The advertising? 

Q. i r es? A. The architect 

Q. The architect. Did the County Commissioners take no, make no 
direction as to where the bids should he advertised? 

A. The) directed it. 

(>. [Tow? Is their direction a matter of record ? 

A. \ i, sir. 

i). Well, how is their ac! ton shown '.' 

A. We gave the arclutei f 's orders. 

(). Who paid the lulls for advertising ? 

A. Th - Count \ . 

(>. Are th • bills on file 

A. 1 presume 1 lie) are. 

Q. With whom ? 

A. Tli • Treasurer. 

Q. Are the) a part of the vouchers which show how the money ex- 
panded for the Court House was spent? 

A . r t hinl so. 

Q. Voi i think they are - 

A. V -a, sir. 

Q. So thai you think b) going to the County Treasurer, L can find a 
vn ichev f >r ever) single dollar thai was spent ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you know of no vouchers that are not there ? 

A. X >. sir. 

(,). Now where are the plans for the work and the specifications? 

A. The plans are at the < 'our! House. 

1,1 [i v. hose custody ? 

A. [-"ractically in t lie Commissioners custody. 

Q. Well in whose? II i wa ted to see them, to whom should T go ? 

A. The janitor of t lie building. 

(J. The janitor of i he buildii g ? 

A. 1 1 ■• has charge of them. 

Q. If- lias charge of the plans : are the speciticat ions wit li I hem ? 

A. \ >. sir, the specifications are with the Treasurer. 

Q. Are fded with the Treasurer? Are all the specifications of all the 
contracts for all the work done on t lie Court House in the hands of the 
Treastt rev ? 

A. •> 

<>. Tli md the plans are in the hands <>{' the janitor ? 

a. v s 

Mr. Storev. Thai is all I want to km 



EVERY FACILITY CHEERFULLY FURNISHED. 

It may also be said that instead of hindering the Committee in the in- 
vestigation, as they state in their report, Mr. Morrell and Mr. Blanchard 
went (tut to Dedham on the same train with Mr. Bradbury, the commit- 
tee's accountant, provided a table and chair for him in the Treasurer's 
office, and directed the Treasurer to furnish him with every voucher, re- 
ceipt, specification and paper, in any way pertaining to the Court House, 
which the Treasurer did. They also told .Mr. Bradhury that the Clerk of 
the Courts was the clerk of the Board, and he would give him their rec- 
ords. They also directed Mr. Daniel], the custodian of the Court House, 
to furnish Mr. Bradbury every facility in making his examination, which 
was done. 

NO BOOKS TO KEEP. 

The Committee, after hearing all the testimony, evidently know 
very little about the conduct of county business; their statements 
may, therefore, be attributed to their ignorance, and that in turn 
was probably due to the want of attention to the evidence. This 
fact emphasizes the necessity that men who are placed in a judicial 
position shall carefully consider the evidence adduced, if nothing 
more. It appeared in evidence, and if it had not, the Committee 
should have known it, that the Commissioners keep no hooks of 
any kind and no law requires them to. The Board of County 
Commissioners constitute a Court, and all records are kept by and are 
in the custody of its Clerk. The Clerk of Courts is by law the Clerk of 
the Board. When a bill is approved by the Board, the Clerk makes a 
record of the name of the person to whom the payment is due, the 
amount, and what it is for. The Clerk then makes a certificate, which 
with the bill is passed to the County Treasurer, who pays the money. The 
Commissioners have no authority themselves to pay out one cent of the 
county's money. They have no books or records to keep. But no set 
of books are kept more correctly or systematically than are those 
of the Treasurer of Xorfolk County. And no one, so far as known, ever 
criticized the records. It may lie added that all records and docu- 
ments, either in possession of tin.' Treasurer or Clerk were presented at 
the Commissioners' request at the first hearing. The Committee, in its 
ignorance of the evidence, evidently got the hooks of the Commissioners 
relating to their private affairs confounded with the Treasurer's hooks 
and the Clerk's records, for it is a fact that an inquiry was made of the 
Chairman of the County Commissioners if lie kept books of his private 
expenses, and he was also interrogated as to his means of income ami 
what property he had. Of course such inquiries were entirely foreign 
to the investigation, but the chairman let in the evidence. When the 
Committee say the Commissioners furnished no documents ami papers 
except when the same were demanded, they state what is not true, hut 
if true, no inference could properly have been drawn against the Com- 



id 



missioners, because the Committee should have asked fur the books and 
records of those who had the lawful custody of them; but when the 
Commissioners did take the pains to see thai the papers ami records 
were present at I he hearing, and th to find the Committee so careh ss 
of the facts as to make t!i»' statement above quoted, the Commis- 
sioners feel that some board should he organized to investigate the 
Committee, [t might then lie discovered why it is thai the Committee's 
report was written in such haste, why it follows in ideas ami language 
so nearly the argument of their counsel as to raise a suspicion that as 
the Committee knew little ict s, the easiest way Avas to take 

the counsel's argument and call it the Committee's report. 

3IIS-STATE3IEXT OF FACTS. 

The ( 'ommittee, in its haste to condemn the ( 'omniissioners, or in its 
ignorance of the evidence, mis-state the facts. They state in their 
report that the Commissi i ,ere only authorized to spend 

$280,000, while by their own construction of the law the sum should 
have been $35!),000, as fully appears by the following table, the items 
which appear in the estimate:- »f the County Commissioners to the 
Legislature for the years from !802 to iso.y inclusive, on lile in the 
office of the Secretary of the C " n ion wealth, except the item " special 
appropriation, $200,000," whicl thorized by Stat, of I Si>2, ch so, and 

Stat, of LS04, ch. 15: 



Additions to Court 1L mthorized by Legis- 
lature 

Repairs and furnishing C Idings, 

Repairs, etc., 

Additions 



;.", 000 
.-> ,00'J 



laooo 



Repairs, etc., 
Addition, 



15,000 
27. " 



Auditions, 
Repairs, etc.. 

Special appropriation? 



10,000 

20,000 

J( 10. 000 



-:',".( p.' ■no 
The estimates for repair- iwn to have been intended for the 

court house. They were put in . ider that head in the < ounty estimates 
for the very purpose of having 'count show how the money was 

expended. The whole work ;: house might well have been 

• •ailed repairs or alterations. The aim named in the second contract 
with Willcutt, made in i802, wa !, and was so stated in the 

contract itself, into $50,000 for additions and $20,000 tor r< pah . although 



11 

the estimate for repairs that year was only $5000. It must have been 
evident to the Committee, if they had paid proper attention to the evi- 
dence, that the estimates for 1893, when Mr. Wiggin was Chairman of 
the Board, did not call for $25,000 for repairs and $13,000 for additions 
for any purpose except for reconstructing the court house. Further- 
more, there were specific appropriations for additions for $285,000 
instead of $2S1,000. 

UNFAIR TREATMENT. 

The Committee in its report say, "It is impossible for the Committee, 
in the time which has elapsed since the hearing was closed, to deal at 
length with the questions presented or to discuss the evidence," and 
that "they regret in the time at their disposal they are not able to pre- 
sent the detailed evidence which sustain the statements made in their 
report. " 

This action of the Committee in not citing the evidence to support 
their report is most unfair to the Commissioners, for the testimony is 
so voluminous that it cannot be reprinted without great expense, and 
the Commissioners are thereby deprived of a fair hearing before the 
people. For the Committee to hide themselves under the cover of " no 
time to cite testimony and to discuss the evidence," when they are so 
willing to smirch men's reputations, is a most reprehensible act on their 
part; especially is this true asthe evidencedoes notexist as a foundation 
of the Committee's report. 

FACTS IGNORED. 

Taking the report of the Committee, what is the testimony on which 
their findings are based ? 

1st. The report of the Committee says "the total sum which the 
County Commissioners for Norfolk County was authorized to spend 
in the construction and repair and furnishing of the Court House was 
$281,000. The evidence before the Committee showed that their total 
expenditure was nearly $400,000, and the Committee find that all the ex- 
penditure in excess of $281,000 was illegal and unauthorized. " 

Now. what are the facts? The total cost of the construction, re- 
pairing and furnishing of the Court House, together with the installa- 
tion of electric light plant at the jail (which lights the Court House) was 
about $393,000. 

To pay this the Commissioners exercised the authority given them 
by the Legislature in 1S94. to borrow $125,000, and the balance was raised 
by taxation during the years of construction, the Commissioners using 
unexpended balances from year to year as they had a perfect right to 
do, and as was done by the Boards of '02 and '93, when G. V7. Wiggin. 
Esq., of Franklin, was chairman of the Board. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse) Mr. Wiggin, in 1892 you submitted your es- 
timates; did you make any deduction from the amount of those estimates 
for the balance on hand ? 



A. I think we dirt not, because we were asking for quite a large 
sum of money for the Court House addition. I think our idea was to 
use that. 

Q. In point of fact, Mr. Wiggin, it is true, is it, not, that after you 
determined upon the erection of the Court. House, and that expense had 
to be considered, you didn't deduct your balances in the treasury from 
the anion nt which you estimated for the various items of expense when 
you were ask in'.;- for an appropriation by the Legislature V 

A. Yes, sir, I think that is a fact. 

Q. Bj Mr. .Morsel should you have felt any hesitation in using 
any part of that balance required for the payment of expense incurred 
in the construct ion of the Court House V 

A. Xo, sir, 1 don't think I should if we hadn't needed it for other 
purposes. 

Q. So if you had had that additional $20,000 or $40,000, and the 
amount was required on the Court House, you would have used it for 
that purpose V 

A. Yes, sir. I think, basing our action upon what I understood 
Judge Hoar's decision to be several years before that, that if it had 
been on hand we should have had a right to use it. 

FOlAAt WED ESTA BLISHED CUSTOM. 

In other words, instead of burdening the County with a large funded 
debt, they adopted the polic\ of "pay as you go;" for this they are con- 
demned by the Commit tee in their report. 

A letter from Judge Humphrey, former Chairman of the Board of 

Count) Commissioners, shows the custom and practice' of former 
boards to have been the same as adopted by the present board in 
its expenditure of "balances.'' The Hon. Samuel 1'. Loud, referred 
to in said letter, was the first Chairman of the board in 1S28. The 
letter is as follows: 

qiuincv. June 20, 1806. 
Melville b. Morrell, bsq., 

< 'hairnia n C >. Com uiissioners, 
! 'ear Sir: 

Your letter of inquin respecting an '"opinion" given me by Judge 
Hoar, while I was Chair in • of the County Commissioners of Norfolk, 
e <i nest ion of the right of County Coin uiissioners to use "ha lances" 
of appropriations for the erection of county buildings without obtaining 
special authority from the Legislature for such use, was duly received : 
but upon examination [ do not lind that I have in my possession any 
writ ten opinion on I hat subject. 

M\ recollection is thai ! did consult Judge Hoar at the time when 
the Co. Com. were building the dwelling-house for the Keeper of the 
Jail, and thai he sustained orally thai right, as it had been practised by 
our predecessors, Hon Samuel b. bond and Hon. Xathaniel F. Safford. 

Yours respect fully, 

J.\ mis Humphrey. 



13 



AD VIC E O E -J I D G E II O A H . 

The Committee in their report, notwithstanding these facts were 
brought out in the hearings, condemn the Commissioners tor following 
the advice of Judge Hoar, and the universal practice of former Boards. 
The report dors not refer to these circumstances as even an excuse for the 
Commissioners. It makes t he accusation, and leaves I he public to infer 
that the commissioners intentionally and knowingly violated a plain 
provision of law. It calls the expenditures of balance noon public build- 
ing illegal and unauthorized, and sagely remarks that— "It is useless for 
the Legislature of Massachusetts to give officers of a county authority 
witli distinct limitations, if those limitations are to he absolutely disre- 
garded." 

The Commissioners are still of opinion that following the advice of 
Judge Hoar and the precedent of former Boards, would not with any 
fair, unprejudiced committee be called absolutely disregarding a, distinct 
limitation of the statute. When the question presented concerns the 
correct interpretation of a, statute, we still think it would he safer to err 
with Judge Hoar, than to shine wi! h that Committee. 

As a, further reply to the Committee's finding on this point, we would 
say that Sec. 20, Chap. 22 of the Public statutes, among other things, 
gives County Commissioners authority to build court houses, irrespec- 
tive of any knowledge, permission or authority from the Legislature. 

"Sect. I'D. County Commissioners shall have authority,— First, To 
provide for erecting and repairing court-houses, jails and other neces- 
sary public buildings, within and for the use of their county " 

The Committee in its report next says: 

Public Statutes, chapter 22, section 22, provides a-- follows: '-All 
contracts for public works made by the Commissioners shall, if exceed- 
ing $300 in amount, be made in writing, after notice for proposals there- 
for has been published at least three times in some newspaper published 
in the county, city or town interested in the work contracted for." This 
requirement of law was distinctly violated. Contracts exceeding $300 
were made in connection with the Dedhani Court House to the number 
of at least twenty, of which only seven were awarded alter advertise- 
ment as required by the statute. Of the total amount expended the 
seven contracts covered $276,338. The balance was paid to contractors 
who received their awards after no public competition. Contracts to a 
very large amount were not in writing, as the statute require. There- 
fore, this very important statute, intended for the protection of the tax 
payer, was deliberately violated in both these important provisions, and 
the Committee find that the violation continued from the early part of 
1894 down to the completion of the court house, in 189 >." 

NO LAW VIOLATED. 

In reply to this finding of the Committee, it need only be said that 
up to the present time our Supreme Court has not construed the words 



1 1 



"public works," ami we submit that the Commissioners arc as capable 
of construing these words as the Committee, if their report be a criterion 
of their fitness and abilit} to construe then:. 

At ; 1 1 1 > rate, the facts are that the Commissioners advertised every 
contract in reference to the court house that possibly could come under 
the head of ■' Public Works," and the lowest hid was accepted in every 
rase. 

FAIR COMPETITION PROVIDED FOR 

They invited fail- competition in all cases where no advertising was 
done, and whatever they did they followed the example of Mr. Wiggin, 
the Chairman of the Hoard up to 1804, who. by the Committee, is 
exonerated from any wrong doing. 

13\ Mr. Morse to Mr. Wiggin. 

Q. Did you advertise to make contracts with architects for the con- 
struction of this court house ? A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Why not ? 

A. Because 1 never considered that a public work under the 
statutes. 

Q. It was an expenditure of more than $300, wasn't it '1 

A. Not for a public work, as 1 construe that term. 

Q. It was for work in connection 

A. The\ were employees of the County, and [have never regarded 
1 hal as coming within the stat ut e. 

< v >. How r were they employees of the County any more than a man 
who set up an engine was an employee ? 

A. [ don't know that we ever paid a man for setting up an engine, 
or ever advertised for a man setting up an engine. 

Q. Then you don't consider that the employment of labor in con- 
nection with the construction of or addition to a public work is a con- 
tract for a public work within the statutes'.-' 

A. Labor alone V Labor alone— I should think it was exceedingly 
doubtful if that came within the statute. 

Q. And you have already said that personal property alone does 
not come within it, where you go info a simp ami buy, havn't you ? 

A. Well, perhaps I said that. 

Q. So that if neither labor nor property is the subject of il, what 
dees come within the class of contracts for public works, as you con- 
strue it ? A— Such as were made in regard to this. 

Q. What was the cost of t he engine and dynamo ? 

A. I think the engine cost $4o0. I think that is the cms;. 

Q. Of whom did you get it'.' A. Of the Exeter Machine Works. 

Q. Exeter Machine Works V A. Exeter, New Hampshire, yes, sir. 

Q. Dues that include the cost of the dynamo ? A. Xo. sir. 

Q. What was the cost of the dynamo? 

A. I think it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 6700. 



15 

Q. Of whom did you get that? 

A. I think that came from Sawyer, Mann & Company. 

< t >. Who put up the engine and dynamo ? 

A. Well, Mr. Field and myself and the engineer and the prisoners 
set the engine, 1 think, and the dynamo, I think, was set by the com- 
pany who furnished it. 

OLD BOARD DID NOT ADVERTISE. 

Q. Did you advertise tor any of that work ? 

A. I don't think we did : I won't lie sure. We made contracts for 
it: J won't say that we did not, but my impression is that we did not. 

Q, You got the engine, you say. of the Exeter people? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you got the dynamo of the Sawyer, Mann people? 

A. Yes, sir. 

(). Why didn't you advertise for a dynamo and give people a chance 
to compete : j 

A. 1 think we found one that was satisfactory to us and bought it; 
simply bought it. 

Q. That is to say, you went into the shop and bought it ? 

A. Ye>. they furnished it. 

Q. And you did not consider that you were bound to advertise to 
get it, did you V 

A. Xo, sir, if we had we should I suppose. 

Q. And do you see any difference between buying that engine or 
dynamo and buying the fan for the Court House? A. None in principle. 

Q. Mr. Wiggin, did you advertise at the time you bought these 
different lots of furniture for the Court House? 

A. Well, what have you reference to V 

Q. Well, you have testified to the different lots of furniture that 
you bought for the Court House? A. Yes sir. 

Q. Did you buy one lot of about $2000 worth ? 

A. I don't recollect of ever doing it. 

Q. Of Davenport? A. I don't recollect it. 

Q. In 1890? A. I don't recollect it. 

Q. Will you say you didn't '.' 

A. Well, I can't think— I know that we allowed the Register of 
Deeds to purchase some furniture for his office there. 

Q. About what amount'.' 

A. Well, I cannot say, Mr. Morse. 

Q. Was it. a large amount'.' 

A. Yes, it was a considerable amount. There was some counters 
that had to be put in. 

Q. Was it several times more than $300. 

A. Well, I cannot tell you the amount, but I shouldn't be surprised 
if it was. 

Q. AVas it nearly *2<>00'.' 



IC 



A. I have said, Mr. Morse, thai 1 liave no recollection as to tlie 
amount of it. 

Q. I know, but I thought with that form of question you might be 
able to explain ? 

A. N't), I cannot. The reports will show; the records will show 
what it was. 

Q. Did you contract with Davenport to make that furniture? 

A. I didn't personally ; no. 

Q. Did the Board? 

A. 1 cannot say that. I should say what was done was done bj the 
Register of 1 >eeds. 

Q. It was done by the authority of the Board? 

A. Yes, sir, if done at all. 

Q. And it was furnished for that Registry? A. Y<is, sir. 

Q. .Made to order'/ A. I think so, yes sir. 

(}. And it considerably exceeded $:joo. 

A. Well, I should think it must have. 

Q. Did you advertise for that? A. 1 don't think we did. 

<}. Why not? A. L can't say. [ cannot give the reason. 

Q. Do you consider that you were called upon to advertise lor it? 

A. Well, I have no recollection of how that came around, or 
whether we knew to begin with whether it was to exceed $300, or what 
the price was to be. 

Q. Do yon mean to say yon ordered or permitted furniture to lie 
put in without any idea what it was going to cost ? 

A. 1 say I have no recollection about it. 

Q. Weren't plans and specifications made and submitted to the 
Board for appro\ al ? 

A. I don't recollect that they were. I have no recollection of see- 
in.;' them, and I wouldn't say that they were not. 

Q. I happen to find, Mr. Wiggin, the report of tin' < 'onnfy Commis- 
sioners for Xorfolk County, signed by yourself, in the year 1801, which 
states as follows: " Repairs and furnishing for county buildings r A. II. 
i 'a venport, *l'.n:; " ? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, will yon kindly look at that and see whether that refreshes 
your inemon as to that being the amount which the Board of which 
yon were Chairman paid to Davenport for furniture specially designed 
and made lor t he court house V 

A. Well, 1 said before that I have no recollection of it at this time. 
I have no reason to doubt that, Mr. Morse. 

<,). And you know, do yon not, that no advertising took place for 
that contract ? 

A. I don't know that, hut my impression is that, there wasn't any. 
Whether an\ body else competed or not I cannot say. 

Q. Let me call your attention in that, same year to the item, ( leor.u'e 
II. I'eare. < l:i:58. 17, under the head of repairs and furnishings for 
County buildings, and ask what that was for? 



17 

A. George H. Peare, I think, was a man who lived in Hyde Park, 
and who was introduced to us by Mr. Morrell, to do some work in fitting 
up a room for use in the basement of the old court house, and I have no 
doubt that that was the bill for that work. There, were several tilings 
that went into that lull. I don't know whether that is one bill or 
whether it is half a dozen, because at that time the treasurer consoli- 
dated those and they went in. There might have been a half dozen 
different bills there, Mr. Morse, that were all included in that one item. 

Q. Wasn't the principal part of this the rebuilding of the wall of 
the jail V 

A. I don't think so. I think that he did that work in the basement 
of the court house. That is where I should say it was made. I know 
he cut out the windows in the cellar and we finished off a room there 
for the use of occupants of that building. 1 think quite likely he did 
some work at the jail. 

Q. Did you advertise for that work ? 

A. No, sir: it was simply piece work, that was. I think that was 
day work— I think it was. 

Q. Then day work you didn't consider a thing to be advertised for? 

A. I have said that already, once, Mr. Morse. 

Q. Didn't the whole amount paid to Mr. Peare in that year and 
the next, for work that was done by him continuously, amount to 
$3000? A. I couldn't say. 

Q. (By Mi'. Morse.) Under the head of expenditures I find boiler 
and engine, $2698.28 ; what was that ? 

A. Well, I think that is the year the boiler inspectors in the 
middle of the year refused to approve the boilers at the House of Cor- 
rection, and we felt as though it was unsafe for us to continue to use 
them, ami we bought two boilers, two new boilers, and put them in. 
We bought the boilers separately, and we did the work separately of 
setting them in the jail. The mason work was done by one party and 
I In' excavation for these boilers was done by the prisoners in the House 
of ( Correction. 

Q. J)o you think that that work was advertised for? 

A. No, T know that it wasn't. The boilers we bought, I think, of 
Hodge, in East Boston. I recollect going there. 

Q. Isn't this true, Mr. Wiggin, that repeatedly in the course of 
your experiences as Chairman of that Board the County Commissioners 
spent, or authorized to lie expended, sums of more than $300 for the 
repairs and additions to and alterations of public buildings, and for fur- 
niture and other work connected with them, without advertising V 

A. I have no doubt they did. 

JL VOUCHER FOR EVERY ORDER. 

The next finding of the Committee that the Statute requiring that 
"no payments be made by a 'County Treasurer,' except upon orders 
drawn by the County Commissioners, and that bills or evidences of 



IS 

ity indebtedness for which payment is ordered, shall be del 
with the order to the Treasurer," were deliberately violated, can ! ave 
no weight against the Commissioners, for it will be seen that II 
visions relate solely to the County Treasurer, and if there were any 
violations of this statute it was on the part of the Treasure] t the 
Count} ( lommissioners. The fact remains, however, and the te; I 
shows that in every instance there was a voucher for the order oh the 
Treasurer, in most instances to be sure an architect's order, bul 
.sense will say that the statutedoes not require an itemized bill undei 
contracts requiring payment at different times and stages of the work 
up to eighty per cent, of the amount due. 

It ma\ lie said in passing that the Controller of County accounts, an 
officer appointed by the State for the express purpose of supervising 
County accounts, approved the payments by the Comity Treasurer and 
transfers made by the Commissioners, but his judgment seems to have 
had no weight with the Commit tee on these points. Can it be that the 
Committee eared to see nothing favorable to the Board of Comuii 
ers since January 1, 180J ? 

The Commissioners are accused by the Committee next in C e i re- 
port of deceiving (lie Committee of the Legislature in 1805 on Co 
estimates as to the amount needed that, year by them for payments on 
account of the Court House, and they rely on Senator Dallinger's 
Chairman of Committee on Counties— statement as their prop in making 

this finding. 

A VERY BAD MEMORY. 

l'he testimony shows that Senator Dallinger was Chairman 
Committee on County Estimates in is 1 .).".. It also shows that thai 
mittee went to Dedham and inspected the Court House, and that the 
contracts and plans lor its construction were then shown to thecommit- 
tee. .Mr. Dailinger testifies that Air. Morrell, at the private hearing of 
the committee at Dedham, stated that the Commissioners wanted $40,580 
tu pay the hills on account of the construction of the Court House. 
This statement is denied by Mr. Morrell, and Mr. Morrell has in his 
possession the paper shown Mr. Dallinger at that time, where it showed 
that some $05,000 was wanted. It may be said that this is a matter of 
memory bet ween Dallinger and Morrell, but the inquiry is here perti- 
nent, how does Senator Dallinger remember so well on this point 
occurred a year ago. when he testified as follows : 

Q. i Ky Mr. Ciover.) Do you mean to say that Mr. Morrell \va 
present at any of the hearings this year before your committee? 

A. He did not appear in public. 

Q. Wasn't lie present? A. He did not testify. 

(). Wasn't he present? A. I don't recall seeing him in the room. 

( t ). Don't you know that they were all present the first day, and 
didn't Mr. Morrell have some conversation with you the first day" 

A. I thin!-. 1 saw him in the anteroom outside the committee herr- 
ing; yes, sir. 



19 

Q. Do you mean to tell tbis Committee on your oath that Mr. Mor- 
rell was not there the whole of that session? 

A. I mean that he did not testify. 

Q. You say he was not present? 

A. I recall now having seen him the first day of the hearing. I had 
forgotton that he was there in the committee room either time. That is 
what I mean by present. 

Q. Didn't you talk with him at the foot of the table? 
. A. I don't recall that, sir. 

Q. After the committee adjourned? 

A. After the committee adjourned: yes, sir, I saw him after the 
committee adjourned. 

Q. Didn't you see him there during the time that the hearing was 
going on? 

A. In the room where the hearing was going on? 

Q. Yes. A. No, sir, I don't recall it now. 

Q. Didn't you hear him make any suggestion to his counsel there, 
or didn't you see him? You sat at one end of the table? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. His counsel was at the other end of the table? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you didn't see him near by suggest to his counsel anything? 

A. I don't recall it now, sir. 

Q. What room were those hearings had in? 

A. In the old Executive Chamber, Governor's Room. 

Q. Do you know the other two Commissioners? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were they there ? 

A. I recall Mr. Blanchard being there at the last hearing. 

Q. Were they there the first day? Weren't all of them there the 
first day, during the whole session ? 

A. I do not know about that. I don't recall. 

Q. You have no reason to doubt it, have you ? 

A. I know that they did not testify, any of them. 

Q. You have no reason to doubt but what they were there the first 
day, all three of them, have you ? 

A. I don't remember of their being there. 

Q. Do you mean to give the Committee the impression that they 
were not there ? 

A. I recall Mr. Blanchard being there at the last hearing. 

Q. The first day I am speaking about now. A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you mean to give the Committee the impression that none 
of the Commissioners were there the first day ? 

A. No. sir, I don't mean to give that impression. 

Q. And during all of the time of the hearing? What you mean 
simply is that you did not notice them in the room ? 

A. I did not notice the three Commissioners in the room, bo, sir, 
during the hearing. 

Q. That is as far as you want to say ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On the first day I mean ? A. Yes, sir. 



20 

Q. Now. when you went out to Dedham, wore there any contracts 
or papers called lor that you did not see? A. Weexamined; we looked. 

< v >. Will you answer the question, please ? Were there any con- 
tracts or papers called for that were not furnished? No, sir. 

Q. Then you saw everything that you asked for? A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Well, now, what train did you go out on V 

A. I don't remember, sir. 

Q, Didn't you go out on the half-past ten train in the morning and 
stay till three o'clock in the afternoon V 

A. I don't remember that, sir. 

Q. Isn't it the fact that you got there by 11 and stayed there till 3 ? 

A. 1 don't think we got out there as early as 11. 

(}. That is your impression? Now, you say they showed you some 
petitions for the laying out of highways, some of which you knew 
would not he granted? 

A. I made no such statement, sir. 

Q. What did you say in relation to if.' 

A. I said that they had certain petitions which they offered before 
—at the public hearing before the Committee on Counties, last year, 
for laying out of highways: they had them there. 

Q. Didn't yon tell the Committee here to-day that your impression 
then was or you knew then that they would not be granted".' 

A. Knew that they would not be granted ? 

Q. Some of whi(d) would not be granted. Isn't that just what you 
said to the Committee just now,— some of which would not be granted? 

A. I thought my statement was that the impression the Committee 
got was that most of them would be granted. 

Q. Do you remember one for laying out a highway in the town of 
Brookline ? 

A. I don't recall them by detail. 

Q. You can't tell any of them by detail ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you say— I did not catch your answer to Mr. Storey's ques- 
tion—did yon say that the decrees were to be drawn on these, as you 

underst 1, all within a few weeks, the decrees upon the petitions that 

were shown you at Dedham ? 

A. I don't remember that I made— at Dedham? 

Q, Or at the hearing, 1 mean? 

A. Here at the state House? I don't remember of saying that the 
greater part of them would be decreed within a few weeks: I never 
made such a statement. 

Q. I did not catch your answer. I say merely— 

Mm STOREY. I asked the question in that form. 

Q. Mr. Storey asked the question and I did not catch your answer, 
whether yon said they were or not. 

A. I can answer that question. As I remember it, I said that the 
greater part of them would undoubtedly bedecreed: I did not say when. 

Q. 1 was asking, Mr. Senator, because I did not catch what you 



21 

said. Xow, you tell about there being transfers : what do you mean by 
that? 

A. Under the Act of last year? 

Q. Well, the Act of last year was not passed till June, 1895:, you 
were out there in April. Now, what do you mean by telling this Com- 
mittee about transfers in April, before the Act was passed ? 

A. Because previous to the Act of last year they did not even have 
to make any legal transfer: they could simply spend the money for 
that purpose, if they chose. 

Q. Before the Act of last year there was a general sum granted, 
from which the Commissioners drew to pay any expenses that they saw 
lit, didn't they ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they had asked for $30,000 for repairs and building of the 
Court House? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they had a balance of over $40,000 besides, didn't they? 

A. What do you mean by that? I don't understand. 

Q. They had a balance from the year before of $40,000? 

A. I did not remember that. 

Q. Wasn't it stated to you that there was a balance in the treasury 
January 1st, 1895, of $40,039.95? A. Undoubtedly. 

Q. Well, then, so far as you knew, you granted a County tax of 
$160,000? A. $160,000, I think. 

Q $160,000. And then, in addition to that, they had $40,000, 
$40,639.93? 

A. Oh, I deny that. 

Q, What ? A. I deny that. 

Q. You deny that they had $40,000 ? 

A. I deny, after all the bills of the previous year were paid that 
they had very little— 

Q, Do you know that they had a balance on the first of January, 
1895, of $40,639.95 ? 

A. I admit that they had a balance then, yes, sir. 

Q. How much did you understand they owed out of that ? How 
much did you understand at this hearing that they owed out of that 
$40,000? 

A. I understand that the $160,000 which they asked for was for one 
County year, for the expenses of one County year. 

Q. How much out of that $40,000 balance did you understand was 
in outstanding bills on the first day of January, 1895 ? A. I don't recall. 

Q. Did you know? A. I couldn't say. 

Q. Did you inquire ? 

A. I— as I recall it, we tried to find out what the outstanding bills 
were that would have to be paid out of the County tax that we were 
going to grant. And I will say, if you will permit me, in explanation, 
that last year was the first year that the Committee on County Es- 
timates ever went into the matter in detail. It was new to me, new to 
all of us, and we were somewhat at sea. 



22 

Q. You have been telling this Committee about the transfers of 
balances? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There could be no transfers of balances until that act that was 
approved in June, 1895, was passed ? A. No, sir. 

Q. And you were out two months earlier than that ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did you mean by telling about the transfer of balances in 
April, when there was no such thing ? 

A. I mean that it was said at the hearing by Judge French and by 
Mr. Blackmur, that the County Commissioners in asking, that is, in 
making up their estimate— of course, that bill for specific appropria- 
tions was then before the Committee, had been introduced,— in making 
up their estimates, so much for this and so much for that, it was said 
that some of those amounts that they said they wanted for roads and 
bridges were going to lie used for the Dedham Court House. As I say, 
the County Commissioners denied it. 

Q. They had a balance of $40,000, in addition to $30,000 which you 
granted? A. Well, I deny that. 

Q. In the first estimate? 

A. I deny that. I deny that we thought they were going to have it. 

Q. You don't know, nor cannot tell the Committee, nor you didn't 
inquire, how much outstanding debt there was the first of January, 
1895? 

A. The Committee understood that the larger part of the $40,000. 

Q. You didn't inquire, and you don't know, do you, Senator, how 
much there was on the first of January, 1895, of outstanding debt? 

A. I don't remember whether we did or not. 

Q. Was there any question made at that hearing by anybody as to 
the amount of outstanding debt on the first of January, L895? 

A. I don't recall. 

Q. Have some of these persons who have been interested been over 
to your house to see you in relation to this investigation'.' 

A. You mean anybody on either side? 

Q. Has Judge French been there? A. No, sir. 

Q. He has not been to your house at any time in Cambridge? 

A. He has not been there recently. I was trying to think whether 
be had been there once. 

Q Anytime since the hearing before the Committee on County 
accounts? 

A. I cannot recall, sir, whether lie has been at my house or not. 
lie came up to the Senate Chamber to see me one day. 

Q. (Jan you recall whether he has been out to see you on this inves- 
tigation or not? 

A. lie came up to see me at the Senate Chamber, to see how it was 
getting along, what had become of it. 

Q. lias he ever been out to your house at Cambridge? 

A. As I say, I do not recall. I think possibly he did. but my mind 
is not very clear on that subject. 



23 

Q. He came out one evening, didn't he'? 

A. As I say, I cannot recall whether he has been out to my house- 
He lias been up to the Senate Chamber. 

Q. Can you say one way or the other whether Judge French has 
been out at your house in Cambridge to see you in reference to this in- 
vestigation, and to urge you to use your influence to favor it'? 

The Chairman. What is the question? 

(Question read.) 

Mil. Storey. I do not think the question is very material, one way 
or the other. 

Mr. Grover. I don't know. I think it is. 

The Witness. It is not because I do not want to answer the ques- 
tion, but it is because I do not want to make a mis-statement. I have a 
faint recollection that he came out there, but I am not at all sure 
about it. 

The Chairman. I do not see how it is material, but I have not 
said anything because I supposed Senator Dalliuger wished to answer. 

The Witness. I wish to answer. I wish I could give a better 
answer. 

Mr. Grover. I think we can get a better answer from some other 
person. 

The Chairman. Ton may proceed witli the examination of Sen- 
ator Dal linger. 

Mr. Grover. That is all. 

The fact remains that Asa French was seen in Senator Dallinger's 
house, at Cambridge, within two months of the investigation, there for 
the purpose of procuring an investigation if possible, a fact which Dalliu- 
ger cannot remember, though he does remember what happened more 
than a year ago. Truly do the Committee see the mote in Morrell's tes- 
timony, and are blind to the beam in Dallinger's testimony; and on such 
testimony are willing to brand the Commissioners as "deceivers" of the 
Legislature, and "concealers" of the truth from the taxpayers of Nor- 
folk County. 

We have gone into the testimony of Senator Dallinger at some 
length, and we think it shows conclusively that, coupled with a very bad 
memory, he was someiohat ignorant of the duties of his position. 

So far the Committee in their report have considered the actions of 
the Commissioners in reference to violation of statute Law. This 
Committee, though composed of four lawyers and live laymen, do not 
hesitate to accuse the Commissioners of violation of all these statutes 
treated of, even though in one particular the Commissioners were acting 
under the legal advice of the late Judge Hoar, and we submit that their 
findings on the above points are entitled to only such weight as their 
source gives them. 

BEST JUDGMENT USED. 

We come now to that part of the report of the Committee which 
accuses the Commissioners of extravagance, of allowing contractors to 



24 

make inordinate profits, the payment of large commissions, and of mak- 
ing no effort to guard the County Treasury, and "the conclusion that a 
full discovery of the facts would reveal corrupt dealings between the 
contractors and at least one of the Commissioners." 

And, on the first point, "extravagance," we have only to say that 
the Committee were not appointed to pass upon the cost of the Court 
TTo use. The Court House and its furnishings speak for themselves, and we 
are willing to abide t lit- fair judgment of citizens of the County whether 
our expenditures in building the Court House were extravagant or not, 
when it is remembered that the valuation of the County in lS9o was 
$180,1:13, 4:-}.", with a debt of only $125,000, and that, too. incurred by the 
building of the Court House, and with the lowest fate of taxation of any 
County in i lie Siate. 

i I is true, the building could have been built at a much less expense; 
that the chairs, tables and benches could have been of spruce, instead of 
oak, but we built the Court House and furnished it to conform with the 
dignity of the County, using our best judgment as to its needs and 
requirements. 

NO COMMISSIONS TO Till] BOAliI>. 

Now, as to the payment of large commissions by the < !ommissioners : 
There is no testimony from first to hist of the payment of any commis- 
sion by the Commissioners, and the only evidence of any commissions 
being paid by anybody throughout the whole of the investigation is,— 

1st, where Pray <x Company, of whom the Commissioners bought 
rugs, paid Ridgway S> per cent, on a sale of $1600 to the County. Mr. 
Ridgway was in the business of buying and selling carpets and rugs. 
He had acted for the County Commissioners, in the buying of rugs and 
carpets, when Mr. Wiggin was Chairman id' the Board. When the time 
came tor buying of rugs for (lie new Court House, Mr. Morrell saw 
Ridgway on the street, and asked him where was a, good place to buy 
rugs, and Ridgway recommended Morrell to Pray iV Company, and went 
with him to select the rugs, and then claimed from Pray & Company he 
was entitled to a commission for bringing them a customer, and Pray & 
Company paid Ridgway a commission of _•"> per cent. 

(By Mr. Morse.: Did you pay any part of the commission you 
received to Mr. Morrell ? 

A . I did not, sir. 

( ). Or to any member of the Board of County Commissioners? 

A . I diil not, sir. 

Q. In any way, shape or manner? 

A. In any way, shape or manner : no sir. 
I,'< -dirt ct Examination. 

(>. (By Mr. Storey) Hid you pay any other money to either of 
them ? A. No, sir. 

Q, Ever? A. Never. 

Q. Never paid any money ? A. Never. 



25 

Q. Or did you ever send them any rugs ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Anything of that sort ? A. Xo, sir. 

Q. Or give them anything in the way of money or goods, directly 
or indirectly ? No, sir. 

Mr. Libbey, salesman for Pray & Co., testified as follows in reference 
to Mr. Eidgway and his connection with the sale. 

Q. Will you kindly tell me— give the whole history of the trans- 
action ? 

A. I will. Mr. Ridgeway came into the store one day and wanted 
to make the best arrangement lie could in regard to a trade that he said 
that he had for a lot of rugs, and he was turned over to me to make the 
arrangements with. He is an old personal friend of mine. He and I 
have been together a good many years in the carpet business. I made 
arrangements with him. Then Mr. Morrell came in and picked out the 

goods. 

****** 

Cross-examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) Mr. Libbey, were the prices at which these 
different goods were sold fair prices for the goods? 

A. They were; yes, sir." 

Mr. Henry H. Cotton, from whom the Commissioners bought rugs 
for the Court House, testified as follows, in reference to the payment of 
commissions:— 

Croxx-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) Mr. Cotton, did you ever have any private deal- 
ings with Mr. Morrell, or any member of the Board of County Commis- 
sioners'? 

A. I don't know anything about any of the Board. I don't know 
any of them at all, except Mr. Morrell. I know him. 

Q. Well, any one that has ever been known to you as one of the 
Board of County Commissioners? 

A. No, sir. 

Mr. Storey. I do not understand he has answered your question. 

The Witness. Not to my knowledge, I have not. 

Q. Have you ever sold any goods to Mr. Morrell? 

A. No, sir, only these. 

0. I mean to him individually? A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you ever paid him any commission? 

A. No, sir, not a cent. 

Q. Have you ever given him any thing in any way or shape? 

A. Not the equivalent of a tack. 

Q. Have you ever given or paid, or in any other way benefited in 
any way either of the other members of the Board of County Commis- 
sioners? 

A. No, sir, I do not know them. 

Mr. Buzzell of Keeler & Co., who furnished the furniture for the 
Court House, testified as follows as to the payment of commissions :— 



26 

Q. lias the firm of Keeler & Co., or the assignees of that firm, or the 
trustee of that firm, or you representing them, or anybody else repre- 
sentingany of them, at any time, paid any person, either commissioner, 
architect, or anybody else connected with Norfolk County, on the con- 
struction of the Court House, any commission, directly or indirectly, by 
money, furniture, or anything else ? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Has there ever been any agreement or understanding ab'out it in 
any way ? 

A. No, sir. 

All other witnesses who were interrogated on this point testified to 
the same effect as Cotton and Buzzell in reference to paying commis- 
sions to the Commissioners, all of whom denied explicitly the payment 
of any commission to the Commissioners or cither of them. 

The only other evidence of any commission being paid was where 
Sanborn, a sub contractor, paid Franklin a commission of $500. San- 
born was a sub-contractor under Mr. Willcutt. who was the lowest 
bidder for the contract after public advertisement. Franklin had been 
a contractor with the county for part of the work on Court House. 
Trouble had arisen between Franklin and the Commissioners on account 
of his faulty work. When Sanborn figured under Willcutt it covered 
such work as was done by Franklin, and Franklin told Sanborn that if 
he figured and got the job under Willcutt, he should want $500. Sanborn 
figured this amount in his estimate, got the contract, and paid Franklin 
this sum. Nothing of this was known to the Commissioners. The evi- 
dence is that the Commissioners and Franklin were on most unfriendly 
terms. 

So much for commissions; in the case of Pray and Company they 
paid the profit to Kidgeway, and we can well ask the question what 
would Pray ami Company have charged the county for the same rugs if 
Ridgeway, whose judgment in such matters as to the price and quality 
was reliable, hail not gone with Mr. Morrell to make the purchase. 
Everybody knows there is no fixed price for rugs. As to the commis- 
sion paid by Sanborn to Franklin, this took place long after the < 'ounty 
Commissioners had made the contract with Willcutt, under whom San- 
born was a sub-contractor; and so by no possible means could the county 
treasury have suffered in the payment of this commission. 

Now as to the finding of the Committee that the Commissioners 
allowed the con tractors inordinate profits: 

NARROW MARGIN OF PROFITS. 

Mr. Willcutt, to whom was paid alone $230,000 of the $390,000 which 
the Court House cost, testified that his net profit on the whole job was 
about $ 12,000, a little over 5 percent. Certainly $12,000 profit on a job 
of $230,000 cannot l>e considered inordinate, except in the eyes of this 
Committee. 

Mr. Whitcomb, who received $50,000 of the money spent on the 



27 

Court House, was not summoned by the Committee, though he was 
available and had his books, which would have showed his profit. Can 
this be accounted for because the profits of Whitcomb were so small 
that it reflected credit on the Commissioners'!* 

The same applies to Haberstroh, who decorated the Court House, 
costing $3035. 

Hollings' bills for gas and electric light fixtures amounted to $6700, 
and Mr. Hollings testified that he did not make a dollar on the fixtures 
furnished for the new part of the Court House, which in amount was 
more than half he received from the County, and on the balance he- 
made a very small profit. Where is the inordinate profit to Hollings and 
Company? 

Keeler and Company were paid $44,270.29 for the furniture put by 
them into the Court House. This sum included the cartage, setting up, 
etc. Mr. Buzzell of the firm testified that his profit was very small on 
this job. We have the evidence that Keeler and Company was the low- 
est bidder, and we also have the evidence of William I. Beckford, of the 
firm of Doe and Hunnewell, who was summoned as an expert as to the 
value of the furniture itself, put in by Keeler and Company, his esti- 
mate was $46,712 for the same job, and he further testified that " it was 
a nice job." 

Mr. Robert Casson, of the firm of Irving and Casson, was summoned 
as an expert as to the value of the furniture, and he swore, after having 
examined it all thoroughly and going through it in detail,— 

Q. By Mr. Morse. " What was the aggregate estimate made by 
you upon the work?" 

A. $42,561. 

Q. Is that the fair value of the work? 

A. I think so. 

Q. AVhat do you say as to the quality of the materials used, and 
the work itself? 

A. First class." 

Mr. Storey admitted that all the furniture bought of Keeler & Co. 
was in the Court House, and produced no evidence to contradict the evi- 
dence of Beckford and Casson as to the value of the furniture furnished 
by Keeler and Company. 

So much for the inordinate profits made by Keeler and Company. 

Albert B. Franklin, to whom was paid $20,000 on account of work done 
on Court House, under contract made when Mr. Wiggin was Chairman, 
apart of whose work was called a "botch" by the expert, Frederick 
Tudor, when on the stand was not asked by Mr. Storey what his profit 
was: would the inquiry, if made, have shown an inordinate profit under 
Mr. Wiggin's regime, which Mr. Storey did not want disclosed? 

JUST AND REASONABLE. 

H. N. Bates & Company were paid for engines, dynamos and fit- 
tings, about $7600, and about $1100 for work on the fan at the Court 
House. 



Mr. Alfred Brooks Fry, the eminent expert, being called to testily 
as to the prices and quality of work furnished by II. X. Bates & Co., 
after going through separate bills, testified: 

i By Mr. Grover.) I will ask you this general question, whether in 
respect to all the work you have been over, you consider the price 
charged by Mr. Dates a fair price? 

A. As a whole? 

Q. As a whole. 

A. In connection with the fact that, as I understand it, there were 
practically no plans and no specifications; as I understand it, Mr. Hates 
was responsible for the successful installation of the proposed plant, 
that he assumed the responsibility ordinarily taken by an engineer ver\ 
largely; 1 consider in the main the prices just and reasonable. 

( v ). How about the character of the work:' 

A. The character of the work, so far as I am able to determine, 
is good. 

And Mr. Hamilton A. Hill, also an eminent expert, testified as to 
the prices and quality of work furnished by II. X. Bates & Company, as 
follows, after examining all of Mr. Bates' bills. 

Q. Have you looked overall the bills, Mr. Hill? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And what should you say to I hem, to all of them? 

A. Well, 1 think as a whole he has made a reasonable and fair price 
to the Commissioners. I have come to that conclusion after a good deal 
of study of the details of it which I should he very glad to go into. 

(,). I will ask you, Mr. Hill, whether the work was well. done? 

A. It struck me as very well done; I think he tried to make a good 
job of it. 

That a profit of about 100 percent, was made by Mr. Sanborn on a 
piece of work done by him for the county is admitted. The contract 
price was $740. It cost Sanborn $3S9, and his profit was $360, or about 
too per cent, profit . Sanborn did other work for the county under special 
contracts, where he figured his profit from to percent, to :;:U per cent., 
but in all these special contracts the total amount of profits, as testified 
to by him, was about $600 to $700. This is the only case where an\ party 
had received more than a fair profit on the work". 

COMMISSIONERS REDUCED PRICES. 

The Commissioners did reduce prices, did exercise judgment in the 
character of articles furnished and the expense to which the County was 
put, the finding of the ( 'on unit tee to the contrary notwithstanding. 

They cut down Hollings' bills over $1S00; they reduced the price of 
decorating the Court House from $8000 to $3000; they cut Whitcomb 1 s 
account some $1700, and so on in many instances did they cut prices. 
They stand by the character of the articles furnished: and by their own 
supervision of the building and furnishingof the Court House, saved the 



29 

county the expense of an inspector usually employed in the building of 
such a building as the Court House, amounting to some $4500. 

In reply to charges of Committee that certain papers were not 
placed on file with the Treasurer, until after the beginning of investiga- 
tion; also that a schedule of the furniture was dated months after com- 
pletion of work, we will say: 

An examination of the Vouchers and Papers by the Commissioners, 
at the office of the Treasurer, showed that for four bills of small 
amount, a detailed statement was not furnished, although the same had 
been paid on a proper architect's order. We thereupon asked the archi- 
tects to furnish the same. This request they complied witii, and then 
we deposited them with the Treasurer. 

As to the date of schedule, which was dated October 27, 1894, we 
supposed that was clearly understood by the Committee to be a clerical 
error. The date should have been May 3, 1804. Mr. Buzzell, and the 
architects, testified that schedules and estimates in every case were 
submitted to the Board lor their approval before any work was done on 
them. 

The schedule comprised items for furnishing tins for holding papers 
and »lass for sash in record cases, which were taken from schedule and 
referred to one of the ( Jommissioners, for the purposeof ascertaining if a 
saving could be made on these articles. The facts were testified to by 
Mr. Bowker, showing a saving was made of $377.84 flic tins were man- 
ufactured by Kenrick Bros., and the date of their order was May 12, 1894, 
showing conclusively that the matter must have been considered before 
that date. 

THE DIFFERENT BOARDS. 

In order that it may be understood what portion of the work was 
authorized by the different Boards of Commissioners, we make the fol- 
lowing statement : 

The Board from January l, 181)0, to January 1, 1894, was George W. 
Wiggin, Chairman; Melville P. Morrell and John Q. A. Lothrop. 

The Board from January 1, 1894, to September _4, 1S94 (when Mr. 
Lothrop died), was, Melville p. Morrell, Chairman; John '). A. Lothrop 
and Watts H. Bowker. 

Since January 1, 1895, the Board has been Melville P. Morrell, Chair- 
man; Watts H. Bowker and Thomas Blanchard. 

At the time of making the first contract for rear portion of building, 
the plan for the whole building was adopted, and the work divided into 
two parts, designated Front and Rear. The front embraced the front 
wing, and contained, besides vestibule and hall-ways, the Registry of 
Deeds and Registry of Probate on first floor, Probate Court, counsellors' 
room, copying rooms, etc , second floor. The rear pari comprised the 
balance of the building. 

TOTAL COST OF COURT HOUSE. 

The only material change from plans as originally adopted has been 
the reconstruction of the dome. 



30 

Contracts and extra work on rear portion, authorized by Boards of 

!>'.»•_' and LS93, including architect's commissions, . $171,068.82 

( osl of furnishing, decorating, electric work, gas fixtures, 
etc., of rear portion, authorized by Board of IS94, to 

Sept. --'4. 1804 40.126.GS 

Cost of work, on rear portion, authorized by Board of 1895, 2,805.89 

Total cost of rear portion $214,000.89 

Contracts and extra work, including architect's commis- 
sions, on front portion, authorized by Board of 1894, to 

Sept. 24, 1894 140,753.45 

< 'osl of work on front portion, authorized by Board of 1894, 

from Sept. 24, 1894, to Jan. 1, 1895 25,360.00 

Cost of work on front portion, including sidewalk and 

grading, authorized by Board of 1S95 13,601.75 



Total cost of front portion, including cost of curbing around 

entire lot. sidewalk and grading, 179,715.20 



Total cost of Court House, $393,716.09 

All the contracts were signed by every member of the Board at time 
of making contracts. 

In this estimate we have included all bills any way connected with 
the Court House, also electric plant at Jail. 

The bills for furnishing, decorating, gas fixtures, heating and electric 
plant, we have apportioned as near as possible to the different portions 
of building. 

PROPER BUSINESS METHODS. 

As to our business methods, we will state that,— 

1st. Contractors were required to furnish bonds to the amount of 
one-half of their contracts. 

2d. Xo payments were made under the contracts, except on a 
written order from the architects, which order was approved by Com- 
missioners and paid by Treasurer, who took a receipt therefor. 

3d. On the completion of a contract, a detailed statement, includ- 
ing all extras under the contract, was submitted to the architects, 
together with all bills, if any, of .sub-contractors; after adjustment, an 
order was issued for final payment. The contractor was then required 
to receipt his final bill, and thus duplicate receipt was thereby obtained, 
and all bills were finally deposited with the treasurer. 

As to the furniture, the original contract was duly advertised and 
awarded to Keeler & Co., they being the lowest bidders. Before doing 
anything under the contract, they were required to furnish a detailed 
statement, giving price for each and every article to be furnished, and 
this statement was used by the Commissioners as a basis for all subse- 
quent work done by them. As fast as the work progressed, and we were 
able to decide on the additional furniture, prices were submitted and 
comparisons were made and adjusted with previous estimate. 



31 



OPENING STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. GROVER, Esq. 



Mr. Chairman— Mi-. Morse and myself have thought that a brief 
opening might help the Committee in this investigation. We are not 
aware that the Commissioners have withheld any information in their 
possession. The witnesses who have been summoned by the Common- 
wealth have told their story, but the Committee will bear in mind that 
they are men over whom the Commissioners have no control, and if 
books have been destroyed they are not the books of the Commissioners. 
If it has appeared that "facts have to be drawn as with a corkscrew/' 
and when so drawn are only half facts, as was suggested by a member 
of this committee publicly in a speech recently delivered in the House 
of Representatives, it should be remembered that the Commissioners 
themselves have thrown no obstacle in the way, and they trust that this 
Committee will approach the consideration of the questions involved 
in this investigation in the spirit that Herbert Spencer says should pre- 
cede all investigations, "an honest receptivity and willingness to aban- 
don all preconceived notions, however cherished." 

This investigation is not to be carried on upon suspicions. It is upon 
facts that are to be developed, and it is upon those facts that the Com- 
missioners are to be judged and not upon the suspicions that maybe 
aroused by the action of any witness who lias been summoned before 
this Committee. I said that the Commissioners have thrown nothing 
in the way of this Committee for the fullest investigation. They have 
not claimed the rights or havenot been accorded the rights that they were 
entitled to. Mr. Story, able as he is with an expert accountant, has been 
allowed to see these witnesses in private, to examine their books, to call 
in all the aid that he required, but the Commissioners have been offered 
no chance to be present at any of these investigations, of these private 
investigations of the books, or the examination of witnesses. We have 
been content and have had to be content to rest with the good judgment 
of the Committee in the final determination of this investigation. 

Some criticism has been made upon Mr. Sanborn and Mr. Bates in 
their relation to the County Commissioners, but it will be borne in 
mind that with the single exception of the fan put in the Court House by 
H. N. Bates and Company, Mr. Bates or his firm have had no contracts 
whatever with the County Commissioners in relation to that Court 
House. This Committee will remember that the third contract made 
with Mr. Willcutt was for something like $105,000. He was the low est 
bidder and his bid was accepted. It w r as not necessary that they should 
accept the lowest bidder. The Supreme Court has recently decided that 
it is within the discretion of the County Commissioners whether they will 



32 

accept the lowest bid or not ; but in this particular instance, with a 
number of well known bidders and contractors bidding upon the same 
specifications and under the same contract, Mr. Willcutt was the lowest 
bidder; his bid was accepted and the contract made in consequence of 
it. Under that, and as a sub-contractor under Mr Willcutt. came Mr. 
Bates, and under Mr. Kates came Mr. Sanborn. Whatever may have 
been the profit to Mr. Bates, whatever profit he may have got out of the 
work that he was doing under that contract, is no concern of the County 
Commissioners of Norfolk County, because they looked to their con- 
tractor. Mr. Willcutt, who had agreed to do the work, and it is of no 
consequence to the County whether Mr. Sanborn made or losi under his 
sub-contract with Mr. Bates. If he has made tuO percent, profit upon 
some things, the county lias lost nothing. There is no charge here, and 
no evidence has been put in that the work has not been faithfully and 
properly done in accordance with the contracts and specifications that 
had been prepared. If Mr. Sanborn, as a sub-contractor for Mr. Bates, 
and Mr. Bates as sub-contractor for Mr. Willcutt, has paid Mr. A. B. 
Franklin a commission of $500, it is no concern of the Commissioners, 
nor anything that should reflect upon them in the slightest degree. If 
they had not, as they had, taken the lowest bid for thai work, there 
might have been a breath of suspicion about it ; but as he was the lowest 
bidder, and as these men were sub-contractors under him, as the work was 
well and faithfully done, as the County got its full value in the work 
done by Mr. Willcutt, it is no concern of this Committee, and it is no 
concern of the County Commissioners, how much money Mr. II. X. 
Bates or Mr. Sanborn made from those transactions. 

The County has got its value in the work by competit ive bids. 

A great part of the time of this Committee in this investigation has 
been taken in inquiring into the profits and the methods of the contrac- 
tors who were sub-contractors under Mr. Willcutt, which, it seems to 
the Commissioners, was entirely unnecessary, and was an unjust reflec- 
tion upon them. If they have got their work under the. contract, if that 
has been faithfully and properly done, if they have seined with Mr. 
Willcutt for what the\ contracted to do, whose business is :, to enquire 
into the facts of whether Mr. Sanborn has made money, or Mr Hates In.s 
made money, from the sub-contracts with Mr. Willcutt? 

I want to call the Committee's attention as briefly as I can to some 
of the duties of County < oin mission ers. Those duties are designated in 
and their authority is derived wholly from the Statutes. 

That part of their duty which requires them to erect and care for 
public buildings formerly belonged to the Court of Sessions, as did also 
the laying out of highways. The authority to layout highways, how- 
ever, was taken from this Court and conferred upon a body known as 
Highway Commissioners, and later, niton the creation oi the Boards of 
County Commissioners, the authority severally exercised by the Court 
of Sessions and Highway Commissioners, in relation to public buildings 
and highways, was transferred to County Commissioners, where it now 



33 

remains. The Statute denning the duties of County Commissioners, so 
far as they relate to the erection and repair of county buildings has 
never been changed. The law is now found in Public Statutes, chapter 
22, section 20, which provides that— 

"County Commissioners shall have authority,— 

To provide for erecting and repairing court houses, jails, and other- 
necessary public buildings, within and for the use of their county. 

To represent their County, and to have the care of its property and 
the management of its business and concerns in all cases which are not 
otherwise provided for. 

To do sncli other acts as may be necessary to carry into effect the 
power given them by law." 

The authority of County Commissioners within the limits prescribed 
by the Statute is absolute, and they are subject to the revision of no 
other Board. For a neglect of those duties the law provides a remedy. 
If there is insufficient accommodation in any county, the proper author- 
ities may go to the Supreme Judicial Court, and that Court will compe* 
the County Commissioners to furnish suitable accommodations. I have 
understood that one of the court houses of this state, I think the one in 
Hampden, was built by order of the Supreme Judicial Court, and Mr. 
Storey cited one case where the District Attorney of Bristol County 
brought a mandamus against the Commissioners of Bristol County to 
compel them to construct a court house sufficient for the need of the 
County. But that is as far as the Supreme Court can go. It is only for 
a neglect of duty that you can apply to the Court for that remedy. But 
the Court cannot designate to the County Commissioners how they shall 
construct a building, they cannot designate how the rooms shall be 
placed or arranged, they cannot say whether the court house shall be 
built of brick, or stone, or marble, or how it shall be furnished; that is a 
matter left entirely with the discretion of the County Commissioners, 
officers chosen by the people, and it is something with which no other 
body has any concern whatever. Or, in other words, the Supreme, Court 
or no other body can designate the way in winch the Commissioners- 
shall perform their duty. It can compel them to perform their duties^ 
but it cannot designate the way in which it shall be performed. 

If the Committee will pardon me for a moment, I want to call at- 
tention to one of the specifications that I understand my friend Storey 
makes against these Commissioners, and that is in relation to the esti 
mates made by the County Commissioners to the Legislature for each 
year. The Statute, as it remained up to March 10, 180."), required the 
Commissioners on the last day of each year, and by Statute of 1805, 
chapter 143, on or before December I5th in each year, to " annually pre- 
pare and make up the estimates of the taxes for all County charges and 
debts for the year then next ensuing, including the building and repair- 
ing of court houses, jails, houses of correction, and other County build- 
ings, with their appurtenances. The estimates so made up and approved 
by them shall be recorded by their clerk in a book kept for that purpose; 



34 

and a fair copy thereof, with a statement of the amount <>f borrowed 
money due from the County, and of the amount of taxes clue and unpaid 
at the time of making .said estimates, signed by the presiding Commis- 
sioner and attested by their clerk, shall, with the treasurer's account, 
be sealed up and transmitted by the clerk to the office of the Secretary 
of the Commonwealth on or before the tirst day of February next after 
making up the same, to belaid before the General Court for examina- 
tion and allowance." 1 presume the Committee may lie alreadry fam- 
iliar with that Statute, which is found in Public Statute, chapter •_'::, 
.section 22. 

This estimate includes all costs of the County, such as criminal 
costs, which are to be taxed by the prosecuting officer and allowed and 
-certified by the clerk under the direction of the Court and paid by the 
County Treasurer ; the paymeut of medical examiners' fees, authorized 
by chapter 26, section 24; the reasonable expenses of police, district and 
municipal Courts, statutes of 1S93, chapter 396; the expenses of the Su- 
preme Judicial and the Superior Courts, including the services of both 
traverse and grand jurors; the expenses of building highways, salaries 
of county officers, erection and repairing of count} buildings, and many 
other purposes which it is unnecessary to enumerate. 

This fact should be borne in mind, that although the law requires an 
estimate by items, the Legislature, until last year, has always made 
that allowance in one gross sum. And that was the law. The Commis- 
sioners, then, having that amount on hand, paid their bills from 
that general sum without any reference to the estimates that were 
handed in by the Commissioners to the Legislature. It was one gross 
sum from winch they made all their payments not specific estimates for 
a specific purpose, where the Treasurer credited himself with a certain 
amount, as if it were appropriated for a particular object, and then 
charged himself with the sums paid out under that head; but it was 
one general sum, and there was no distinction or division made, and tin- 
Committee will find that that was the law and practice until the pas- 
sage, of the Statute in 1895. 

The Resolve of 1SU0, chapter 47, provides "that the sums against 
the names of the several Counties in the following schedule are granted 
as a tax for each County respectively, to be collected and applied accord- 
ing to law: Norfolk County. $S5,000;" for 1891, chapter 4:;. Norfolk 
County. $105,000; 1S92, chapter 42, Norfolk County, $140,000; for 1893i 
chapter 53, Norfolk County, $140,000; for 1894, chapter :»ii. Norfolk 
County, $150,000; for 1895, chapter 108, Norfolk County, $160,000. Last 
year was the first year when, under the provisions of the Statutes of 1895, 
chapter 143, there was a grant of special items. In addition to these 
general items there have been two special acts id' the Legislature 
authorizing the County of Norfolk to appropriate money for the build- 
ing of a Court House; one in 1892 for $75,000, and one in 1894 for $125,000. 
The Statute provides that the County Commissioners shall have author- 
ity to raise these sums either by taxation or loan. The Act of 1892 was 



35 

the first Act making a special appropriation. The money under that 
Act has never been touched, and it will be for the Committee to deter- 
mine whether it is a good business principle for the Commissioners to 
take the unexpended balances remaining from a general appropriation, 
and pay the bills, or whether they should leave those balances remaining 
in the treasury and make a special loan of $75,000, which the Legislature 
had authorized. I am aware that one of the former Commissioners, for 
whom I entertain the highest respect, has said that this $70,000 was in- 
cluded in the estimates of 1892 and 1893. 

Because the amount asked for the repairs of the Court House during 
those years in the general estimates happen to amount to that sum, I 
don't know that there would be any occasion for me to discuss a prop- 
osition, that is so absolutely unwarranted. If the Commissioners had 
had authority to make a special appropriation of $75,000, they never 
would have put that amount in the general appropropriations that were 
required for the Court House, because it would have been wholly un- 
necessary, and if the Commissioners had come before the Committee on 
County Accounts and asked for $75,000 and said that the amount in 
their general estimate was for the part authorized by that special act, 
the Committee would have said at once, "You don't want that in there, 
you have authority to raise that without any special or additional 
authority from the Legislature." It would be entirely unnecessary and 
superfluous for the Commissioners to come in here and have two Acts 
of the Legislature allowing them to raise that sum of money, and besides 
that, the accounts as kept by the County Treasurer show that such was 
not the fact. Furthermore, I might say that in the estimates put in in 
1802 and 1893, where the Commissioners asked for certain specific sums 
for building the Court House, nothing is said in them, in those 
estimates, about their being a part of the $75,000 already authorized to 
be raised. It was, I think, as we shall show to the Committee, no part 
of the $75,000; that the Commissioners now have authority under that 
Statute to issue their note, to borrow $75,000, or they have authority to 
put it in the next tax levy, and so long as that stands on the Statute 
books unrepealed, they may exercise that authority at any time within 
their discretion. 

Now, I want to call the attention of the Committee a little definitely 
to the accounts as they stood, to justify the position that I have made, 
and that is that the Commissioners have paid the bills for rebuilding 
the Court House without recourse to this $75,000 authorized by the Acts 
of 1892. On January 1, 1892, there was a cash balance of $20,173.35. That 
sum was available for any purpose to pay any indebtedness the County 
had authority to incur. There can be no doubt whatever about that. 
It was available for building the Court House or any other purpose that 
the Commissioners saw fit to use it for. In the estimates for 1892 there 
were these estimates: Additions to the Court House, $35,0no, and re- 
pairs, $5,000; so that the Commissioners had $00,173.35 which was avail- 
able that year for the Court House construction. They expended during 



36 

that year on the Court House, $2S,275, and on other County build- 
ings, in repairs, $1057.03, together amounting to $29,332.03, leaving a 
balance of $30,841.32 to go into the general balance of the next year. 

The cash balance of . January 1, 1803, was $71,202.52. The estimates 
for 1803 were: Repairing and furnishing County buildings, $25,000, ad- 
ditions to the Court House, $13,000, making a general sum of $100,262.52 
available for the expense of rebuilding the Court House. They expended 
on the Court House in that year $57,175, for repairs of other County 
buildings $1603.45, making a total ol $58,778. 15, leaving, as a, part of the 
general balance January 1, 1894, the sum ol' $50,4.^4.07, to go into the bal- 
ance of the next year. Those balances were available for building the 
Court House, if they were not needed for other purposes. 

The cash balance for January 1, 1S94, was $47,433.85. The estimates 
for 1S94 were: Additions to County buildings, $27,000; repairs and fur- 
nishings, $15,000; and by the loan authorized by the Legislature, which 
was raised that year, $125,000; making the total sum available that year 
for the rebuilding and repairs of the Court House, $214,433.S5. They ex- 
pended upon the Court House $183,285.56; repairs on other buildings 
$964.88, making;; total of $184,250.44, leaving a balance on January 1st, 
1895, of $30,183.41. 

January 1st, 1895, there was a balance of $40,639 95. This is the year 
upon which there has been so much discussion. The estimates for 1895 
were : Additions to the Court House, $10,000, repairs on the Court House, 
$20,000, which made $70,639.55 that year available for the building of the 
Court House. I will assume here, for the purpose of giving some fig- 
ures, that the Commissioners were required to charge the sum named in 
their est i mates to each particular item for which I hey were to make ex- 
penditures. That is not so, not at the time when this estimate was 
made, but I will assume ii to he so, that the Committee can see how 
nearly the Commissioners came to their estimate— how well they came 
out. They expended that year $100,391.73, of this sum there appears in 
the miscellaneous charges $6,056.15, leaving $94,335.58. The general re- 
pairs on other buildings cost $244.72, making $94,580.39, from which sum 
deduct $70,639.55, and there remains a deficit of $23,940.35. There were 
transferred from various accounts, $24,000. Taking out the deficit of 
$23,940.35, leaves a balanceof $59.65 that year upon the Court House 
account. 

There was a balance January 1, 189(5, of $S,255.40. The amount asked 
for this year by the Commissioners was $6000 for repairs and rebuilding 
of the Court House. The Committee cut that down to $3500. The bal- 
ance of $8,255.40, as well as the $3500 that is allowed by the Legislature, 
was available for the Court House, making $11,755.40. The amount ex- 
pended in 1896 was $14,700.63, which leaves a small deficit. But if the 
Legislature of this year had granted the $6000 asked for, instead of $3500, 
there would have been to-day a deficit upon building that Court House 
of $445.23, and only $44.".. i':: without touching that $75,000 that was 
authorized by the law of 1892. 



37 

The counsel for the Committee charge us with having made illegal 
transfers last year. I want to call the Committee's attention to the fact 
that that law went into effect on the 5th of June, 1895, and of course it 
could have no possible bearing upon the actions of the County Commis- 
sioners until it went into effect. 

There was expended that year in all for rebuilding the Court House 
$100,391.73, and of this $08,658.63 was paid before the Statute went into 
effect. It left a liability either then due or to become due on June 5, 
when that Statute went into effect, of $29,537.10. And there is no lawyer 
nor any member of the Committee that won't say that when that law 
went into effect they had a right to take the $30,000 allowed them by the 
Legislature to pay the debts that were then due on the Court House, 
and if they had, then there is still a balance in their favor under their 
estimates. They made a mistake in making the transfers, because there 
was no occasion for it. They were exactly within the law without 
making the transfer, because they had a right to pay those bills up to 
the time when that Statute went into effect from the general fund al- 
lowed by the Legislature, as they had done and as had always been the 
custom of County Commissioners from the time when the office was es- 
tablished down, and if not paid, so that the amount then due was less 
than the amount granted by the Legislature, there was no occasion for 
any transfers. Sol say it is for the Committee to determine whether 
it is a good business principle to use unexpended balances for the pay- 
ment of your debts, or whether they should run the County in debt lie- 
cause the Legislature had authorized a loan of $75,000. 

The Commissioners take this position, that there is no authority re- 
quired from the Legislature to authorize them to build a Court House 
if the public interestdemands it. They are required to keep the build- 
ings in repair and to furnish proper accommodations for the Court. 
They must do that whether there is any appropriation from the Legis- 
lature, or any suggestion made to the Legislature. That is a duty de- 
volving upon them; it is not a question for the Legislature to deter- 
mine. And not only have they a right to build, but they have a right to 
issue their notes and to raise money for the building of a Court House 
under the Statute, without any suggestion to the Legislature. The 
question is left wholly to their discretion, not only as to the building of 
the Court House but the kind of Court House that they are to build. 

Now, I want to call the Committee's attention to Public Statutes, 
chapter 23, section 26, and see what the County Commissioners, not only 
of Norfolk County, but every County in this State, had a right to do 
while this building was in process of construction, if they were disposed 
to be dishonest, or if they were disposed to avail themselves of all the 
powers that were granted by Statute. 

"The County Commissioners may renew the whole or any part of 
the debts of their County, may negotiate loans in anticipation of and to 
be paid from the annual tax when collected, and may contract new 



debl - noi exceeding, in an} one year, or for any one object, thirty dol- 
lars For e;n h one thousand inhabitants of the County." 

The Committee will find in th •, more than twenty objects 

thai the law requires the County Commissioners to provide money for. 
tioned some of them. The County of Norfolk, according to 
uis, has 134,810 inhabitants. Thirty dollars for each thou- 
sand inhabitants means $4'), 445. 70 for each object, [f they had aright 
to raisi il for twenty objects, they had a right to raise $S0o,911. 40 under 
the general law without any further authority from the Legislature. 
'i;i;v. May 1 ask you a question ? 

M i;. < (Rover. Certainlv. 

Mi;. Storey. Do you contend that they would have a right to raise 
il for I bree objects and spend it all for one ? 

M >■ I'.'- 1 don't say that. I. say they have a right under that 

Statu li the} have not availed themselves of, to raise for each 

?4o,44.") in the County of Norfolk. Suppose they should avail 
themsi Ia es of that, .Air. Chairman. Suppose they had raised $40,4 to for 
this Court House. iey could have done, as I have 

s 'iid, ' iv authority of the Legi dature, because th • general act 

that 1 read authorizes that— suppose they had, and given the 

i for it, the holde uotesyould collect that money 

'ounty of Xorfolk. wh ther the Legislature granted them a 
'the money to pay for it or not. I don't know how it may 
'"'• wit h a ' ounty, but a man in Mas ;achusetts who lias a claim against 
a tow et his judgment and collect his execution by levyiug upon 

the pr | d' any individual in 1 That is the law as declared 

by the - tipreme Judicial Court a goo I man} years ago. I don't say that 
that apply to the County of Xorfolk, I don't know whether it 

would or not, but I know that the Count} of Xorfolk can sue and lie 
sued like any other municipal corporation, and if the Commissioners 
had raised that money, as they hail a, right' to do, and given their notes 
for it, the holder of those notes could collect it whether the Legislature 
authorized the Commissioners to put the amount in the tax list or not 
from th" property of the County. This is more important, perhaps, as 
bearing upon the question of the good faith of the Commissioners in 
this particular instance thau anything else. It shows that they have 
been to the Legislature. The Legislature have known what the County 
Commissioners desired, and have :ed them to a certain extent 

i o borrow money for the building of that Court House, but the Commis- 
sioners still assert, as undoubted law, that they had aright to go on and 
build that Court House under the provision of the existing law. not 
only the right, but it was their duty to do it if the public convenience 
and il required it, without any authority from the Legislature 

whatevi r. 

1 want to call the Committee's attention to another subject that has 
been brought up in these hearings. Some question has been raised as 
to the right of the County Commission i contract for work costing 



39 



more than $800 without advertising. That, I understand, is one of the 
specific charges, so far as there have been specific charges made, that 
the Commissioners are expected to answer. I wish to call the attention 
of the Committee specifically to the Statute : 

"All contracts for public works made by the Commissioners [shall, 
it' exceeding three hundred dollars in amount, be made in writing after 
notice of proposals therefor has been published at least three times in 
some newspaper published in the County, city or town interested in the 
work so contracted for." 

Public Statutes, chapter 22, section 22. It will be noticed that this 
statute says "public works." I might say to the Committee that that 
Statute is first found in the Acts of 1854. Up to that time there had 
been no such provision in the Statutes. Public works have an exact and 
definite meaning, and unless there is something in the Statute from 
which to plainly draw a different conclusion, words are to be construed 
by their ordinary and usual definitions. The duties of County ( Commis- 
sioners concern public works as well as works that do not come within 
the definition of that term. There is nothing in the Statute to show 
that these words, as used in the Statute, should receive anything other 
than the ordinary and usual definition. 

Public works are defined as "all fixed works, built by civil engineers 
for public use, as railways, docks, canals, and so forth : but, strictly, 
military and civil engineering works constructed at the public cost." 
Webster's International Dictionary. 

That is the definition not only found in the common dictionaries 
but it is the definition found in the dictionaries upon civil engineering, 
and this Committee know that in many cities they have a Hoard of 
Public Works and a Hoard of Public Buildings. There is nothing in 
this Statute to take these words out of their ordinary signification. The 
practical construction put upon an Act of the Legislature by those who 
are obliged to act under it always has more or less weight with Courts, 
and those members of the Committee who are lawyers will remember 
that the Supreme Courts of this State and of the United States and 
of (other States have always said that they give great consideration to 
the practical construction put upon the Statutes by those who are called 
to act under them. 

I want to call the Committee's attention to some of the acts of the 
County Commissioners preceding 1890, which have put a practical con- 
struction by preceding Boards upon that very Statute. 

March 10th, 1889, the County Commissioners paid E. Menhinick 
$840.20 for work at the Dedham jail. In July, 1889. they paid J. P. Perry 
& Company $!:):> for piping in the jail. March is of the same year they 
paid the same firm $2531.45 for piping. October 7, 1891, they paid A. II. 
Davenport, for a counter and gate, $365. Part of that is still present in 
the Treasurer's office. Feb. 1, 1889, they paid William A. Pales, for 
bricking around the boiler, etc., $655. < >n the 31st of January, 1S89, they 
paid a bill, which I quote exactly. This bill is dated the :'.!st of January, 



4d 

i,s-.c "To mercliandi.se as per bill rendered, $1460." July 10, 1889, they 
paid John T. Langford, for piping for the water works, $3220.97. March 
8, 1SS9, they paid the Sawyer-Mann Electric Company, $2S03.S8. March 
30, IS89, they paid the Exeter Machine Works, for engine, etc., $489.35. 
They paid Davenport for furniture, $1542. Now, these bills were paid 
wil limit advertising and without any written contracts. They were the 
practical construction put upon that Statute by the County Commis- 
sioners of Norfolk County. And I presume that if the Committee had 
time, and it was competent to go into the acts of the County Commis- 
sioners in other Counties, they would find that precisely that same 
course is pursued in all the < !ounties. 

There has been no charge here that in any public works, as that 
term is understood and within its meaning, the Countj Commissioners 
have made any contracts, for over $300, outside of provision of the 
Statute. If they had built a bridge, or a canal, or a railroad, or a com- 
mon highway, those objects come within the definition of public works 
and should be advertised for. It may be said, however, here, in justice 
to the Commissioners and as having some tendency to show that they 
were acting in good faith towards the public, that in all of the contracts 
•upon the building of the Court House at Dedham, where there was 
stonework required and where by the utmost stretch of a definition 
there could be any pretence that it came within the definition of the 
term public works, they have advertised. They advertised for the first 
foundation, which was given to L. 1>. Willcutt. They advertised under 
the second contract which was made with Willcutt. for $79,000, and the 
third contract of $10.">,00<> with Willcutt. They were all advertised. So 
was Franklin's and so was Whitcomb's contracts, one for heating and 
ventilating and the other tor carpentry work. Any work that has been 
done upon that ( !ourt House that by any possible means can come within 
the definition of the term public works, as understood, and as defined 
by everybody who is acquainted with the definition of the term, has 
been advertised for by the County Commissioners, and the contract has 

I .i in writing, thereby coming specifically within the terms of the 

Statute. When there is an Act upon the Statute hooks, it is the duty of 
public officers to comply with it. and in the construction and rebuilding 
of that Court House the Commissioners have complied with all the pro- 
visions of the Statutes in relation to the raising of money, and also in 
relation to the advertising of contracts ami making contracts in writing. 

There is one suggestion I should like to make to t he Committee. 
Perhaps I may as well do it now as any time. That Court House was 
structed in parts, and perhaps it was more expensively done than 
it would have been if the whole work could have been carried on at once. 
Hut tin* Committee will remember that there were sessions of courts 
to be provided for, the Supreme, Judicial, and the Superior Courts, 
and the Probate Court. There was the Registry of Deeds, the Registry 
of Probate, the Treasurer's office, all in that biuldng. Consequently, 
the Commissioners, when they began their work, first took the South 



41 

side, throwing the offices all over into the North side, and constructed 
that part of the building. Then, when that was completed, they car- 
ried their offices all over into the South side and reconstructed the 
North side of the building. So that, in order to accommodate the offi- 
cers and Courts that had to be held there, they had to construct the 
house in parts rather than doing it all at once. 

We expect, Mr. Chairman, that the evidence will show that there 
was not only a public demand for the reconstruction and rebuilding of 
that Court House, but also that there was absolute need of rebuilding or 
making additions to the Court House. Acting upon that and per- 
forming their duties, as they were obliged to do, they began in the year 
1891 to look about and see what they ought to do in relation to it. I 
think the Commissioners have stated, if not, it will later appear, that 
two of the Commissioners went to Cambridge and saw the public build- 
ings there; they came back to Boston, and at the suggestion of the 
County Commissioners of Middlesex, visited the office of Wait & Cutter, 
the architects. Some suggestions were made to them as to what the 
Commissioners deemed desirable to do, and they were requested to make 
some sketches. There the matter remained for some months. After 
the new Board was installed in 1892, the subject was brought up again 
and Mr. Willcutt was called in. He was told, and the Commissioners 
pointed out to him, what they thought it was necessary to do about the 
Court House. Mr. Wait was called out. Mr. Willcutt estimated the 
cost of the work, as then proposed by the County Commissioners, to be 
from $(55,000 to $75,000. It was upon that basis that Messrs. Wait & 
Cutter had prepared their sketches, not plans, but mere sketches. Then 
Mr. Wait was called before the Commissioners and the matter of their 
fees was talked over. It was then agreed, as suggested by Mr. Wiggin, 
that, as there would be probably $65,000 or .$75,000 expended, they would 
calculate their fees for that work upon an expenditure of $65,000. Mr. 
Wait then said that for so small a job as that he thoughthe ought to have 
something for travelling expenses ; whereupon Mr. Wiggin figured five 
per cent, cost upon $05,000, making $3250, and said, "We will add $50 
to that sum for travelling fees, making it $3300," and that was agreed 
to in writing. As I understand, the reason why that agreement was 
made was to cover just the work that was proposed then to be done, and 
no more. It did not include the work as it finally appeared. Messrs. 
Wait and Cutter would have been bound by their contract if that work 
had cost $75,000, and all they would have been entitled to would have 
been $3300; but when the work and the whole plan was changed and a 
more expensive < Ymrt House than was then anticipated was built, any 
lawyer knows that the contract then made was a nullity, and as there 
was no specific contract made for the amount that the architects should 
receive, they were entitled to a fair compensation for their services. 
Mr. Wiggin, I have no doubt, acted as he supposed in the interest of the 
County in making the architects fees a specific sum, and he made that 
sepcific sum so that if the cost should run over live or ten thousand dol- 



42 

lars t hey would be bound by their conl ract, lml they were bound by that 
contract only for the work that was then proposed; they were not bound 
any farther. When the plans were changed, when the works were en- 
larged, when more expensive work was required, then the contracts 
ceased, and the architects came in for what their services were reason- 
ably worth, and we shall claim that live per cent, upon the cost of that 
building is an ordinary and fair sum to he paid for their work. And 1 
will also call at lent ion of the Committee here to this fact, that that bill 
was not paid carelessly or thoughtlessly, that there was discussion about 
it, and that the advice of counsel was taken as to the Commissioners 
duty in the matter, and they acted upon their counsel's suggestion. 
They cannot have been said to have, been wrong in acting in 1 hat way. 

I presume the Committee may be fully aware of the methods adopted 
!'\ the County Commissioners in paying the bills upon that Court House. 
They are the same as I understand are adopted for the payment of the 
hills upon this State House. They are the same as are adopted and must 
be adopted for the payment for the construction of any public building. 
The County ( 'oinmissioners, who are building the Court House, like the 
Commissioners of tins state I louse, employed, as they supposed, compe- 
tent architects. That they were competent is seen from the fact that 
t hey have heen engaged by other counties in the same line of work" and 
upon buildings outside of the state. I laving done that, they did as you, 
Mr. < 'ha in nan. or any member of the < Committee won id do in building a 
house, looking it over to see that the work was going on properly, but 
still trusting thai t lie details of that work would be looked after by the 
architects whom they had employed, who were experts in their line, and 
t a miliar with the work that the Commissioners themselves could not be 
familiar with. Those contracts provide that the contractors shall be 
paid eighty per cent, of the value of the work" from time to t ime. When 
it came to the payment upon those contracts, Mr. Wait made an esti- 
mate of the work, and drew an order which was carried to the County 
Commissioners. The Commissioners could not estimate the sum due 
under the contract. It would be impossible for an ordinary man in do- 
ing a job of that kind to estimate just the amount of work that a con- 
tractor had done upon it, and they left it, and properly left it. to the 
architects to determine. The contractor presented the certificate drawn 
by the architects to the County < Jommissioners, who approved it. That 
went through the usual channel, and was paid by the County Treasurer. 
And 1 don't know of any other way that work could be carried on than 
the method adopted. That is the usual method, and that is the proper 
method. There can be no specific items filed upon a contract which re- 
quires the payment of a sum in full. There is certain work to be done, 
which the specifications provide for, and it is as a whole that it is done, 
not in parts, and when there is an estimate made upon that work it has 
got to be upon a general certificate, it cannot be upon specific items. It 
would be impossible for any contractor to build a public building and to 
file a specific item every t ime t hat he asked for a payment under his con- 



43 

tract. The County Commissioners have fully complied with the law in 
that respect. When they came to the extra work they have required, 
and you will find in every instance, a specific bill of items for that work. 
In rebuilding a Court House like that at Dedham, more extra work is 
required than would lie necessary in constructing a new building. 1 
want to call the Committee's attention to one item which will be found 
in one of Mr. Willcutt's bills/and that is for the foundation. The Com- 
missioners had supposed that the foundations were adequate for the new 
building, the architects had supposed so and so had the contractor; but 
when the architects came to make an examination, they found that there 
was a cobble stone foundation, and they had to put in a new foundation 
in order to secure safety to the new building. That was extra work. It 
cost over $300. It was not in writing. But would this Committee say 
that the Commissioners should have advertised for that work under 
those circumstances? Would any other contractors have come in 
and hid against Mr. AVillcutt under those conditions? And so it will he 
found that many of these extras that are charged arose in similar ways, 
something that was unforeseen, and could not he determined when the 
original contracts were made. 

It will be remembered by the Committee that the Commissioners 
kept no hooks of account. The law does not compel them to keep hooks 
of account, and they could not keep hooks of account if they chose, very 
well. But the law does say that the Clerk of the Courts shall be the 
clerk of the Commissioners, and when a bill is approved by the Commis- 
sioners a record of it shall be made by the clerk. The record having been 
made, the bill is passed to the County Treasurer. He is the accountant 
of the Count}, not the County Commissioners. Under a recent Statute 
every bill thai is approved by the Commissioners requires a certificate 
from the clerk before it is paid by the Treasurer. That accounts for the 
reason that certain bills appear in what is called the pay-roll which lias 
not, as used by the Commissioners, I think, of all Counties, the exact 
definition of a pay-roll, such as that term is generally understood. There 
are several bills put into one certificate with the pay of workmen. The 
bills are approved by the Commissioners, and the clerk makes one cer- 
tificate which answers for all of those bills. Some of it may be pay-roll 
for the payment of workmen, and some maybe for another purpose, but 
it all goes into what is called the pay-roll, and under that one general 
certificate from the clerk. I have not heard during this examination any 
suggestion that the books of the County Treasurer of Norfolk County 
have not been properly kept. I have not heard any suggestion that there 
has been any neglect on the part of the Clerk of the County Commis- 
sioners as being derelict in his duty. Whatever faults may lie upon 
other parties to these proceedings, or the witnesses to these proceedings 
if they are not parties, in relation to their hooks of accounts, have noth- 
ing whatever to do with Commissioners. They have no control over 
those books, and, unless it can be shown that some, money 1 hat was paid 
to the contractors went back to the pockets of the Commissioners in 



44 

some way. it is no concern of theirs how the men with whom they 
deal keep the books— whether these men know whether they are making 
a profit, or working at a loss. 

We shall show, I think, if the Committee please, that no member of 
the County Commissioners of Norfolk has ever received a dollar directly 
or indirectly from any one of these contractors. 

Some suggestion is made in relation to Mr. Bates and Mr. Morrell. 
They have been friendly. They live in the same town. I don't know 
that any suspicion should be drawn against a man for hiring some one 
whom he knows and in whom he has confidence to do a piece of work. 
I think that every one does that. When I have a building to erect, I 
don't go to a stranger, I go to somebody I know, some friend in whom I 
have confidence. And if men are to be tried upon that ground, if it is 
suspicious to have a friend who is a well known business man and to 
employ him to do any work, why, then, perhaps the County Commis- 
sioners in that particular instance have been guilty because they hired 
a friend. And so with the others. The Committee will also remember 
that this contract for the furniture was let out to the lowest bidder by 
competitive bids, and allot the contracts, perhaps with one exception, 
contain a clause that if extra work is required under the contract it shall 
be upon the same terms as provided for in the contract, and if there is 
anything taken away from the contract there shall lie an allowance 
made in proportion to the work required. 

Gentlemen, 1 am sorry that 1 have detained you so long. I have 
only undertaken to give you a sketch of what the evidence for the Com- 
missioners will prove. I shall leave the witnesses to repeat the story in 
detail. 



45 



CLOSING ARGUMENT OF ROBERT M. MORSE, Esq. 



Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: — 

This Committee is sitting as a judicial body to investigate and 
determine whether in the construction, enlargement, repairs or furnish- 
ings of the Court House, at Dedham, there has been any violation of 
law by the Commissioners of Norfolk County. In deciding that question 
this Committee will proceed under the same rules of evidence, and 
governed by the same law which obtains in the administration of justice 
in every tribunal. It does not sit here to record or repeat gossip or 
scandal, or insinuation, but it is to determine, under the solemn sanc- 
tity of its oaths, whether or not there has been any violation of law 
proved upon the evidence submitted. 

I am led to make this preliminary suggestion, particularly in con- 
sequence of the somewhat peculiar course which this proceeding has 
taken. In the beginning the Committee inquired whether any one had 
any charges to make against the Commissioners, to which no reply was 
made. So far as the record of this hearing goes no person has been 
willing to put himself before the Committee as responsible for the 
vague insinuations and charges that have been presented. The Com- 
mittee, in that contingency, regarded it as their duty to obtain from the 
Legislature authority to employ counsel, and counsel was employed, 
able counsel, the ablest who could be obtained. My learned brother, in 
corning into this case, in the honest discharge of what he regarded as 
his duty, considered that he was to take the position of prosecuting 
officer, and instead of seeking to obtain from the Commissioners them- 
selves, or through their counsel, explanation upon matters which could 
easily be explained, he began a series of examinations, which involved 
the Commissioners, the architects, the mechanics and the tradesmen 
who have had to do with this work, and which have ended in an indis- 
criminate and reckless charge of fraud and conspiracy against them all. 
I make no criticism upon the course which he thought it his duty to 
pursue, because I know that he derived the feeling, and the suspicion 
which led to this course, from the one person who is in fact responsible 
for this proceeding; but I refer to it now in order that we may have 
a clear understanding as to what the relation of the Committee is to 
my brother, and as to what his relation is to the Committee. 

If this Committee are the clients of my brother, and he is their 
counsel, and they are to receive from him his opinion and Ins beliefs, 



46 

and take them as clients ordinarily take the opinions of counsel im- 
plicitly and properly, and follow them, then it is useless for me to argue 
upon the law and evidence of this case. But if, as I conceive, the func- 
tion of this committee is to discharge a judicial duty, and if the relation 
of this Committee to my brother ceased when they employed him as 
counsel, and if he stands before this Committee in no other way than 
any counsel would stand conducting the prosecution, entitled to fair 
consideration by the Committee of his statement of the law and of the 
evidence, entitled to be followed where his views of the law are correct 
and his inferences from the evidence are sound, and not to be followed 
when those views are incorrect, then we are fairly before the Committee, 
and we are to stand upon the respective weights of the arguments that 
are to be presented. 

Some suggestion was made in the early part of this hearing that this 
was a court of inquiry, and that my brother was judge advocate general. 
That was the position which he himself stated that he held. That is 
not my view of this hearing or of the respective positions of the parties. 
I claim and I ask the Committee to recall that from the beginning it has 
been a prosecution against the Commissioners of Norfolk County, in 
which the same methods have been pursued that would ordinarily be 
pursued by prosecuting officers ; that whatever could be done by the 
manner in which questions were put or witnesses treated, whatever 
could be suggested that would reflect upon the Commissioners has been 
suggested, and that from beginning to end there lias been no word of 
commendation or explanation for anything that they have done, but 
simply censure, condemnation, and finally this gross charge of fraud 
and conspiracy. 

I ask of this Committee an impartial and candid hearing ; I want 
nothing more than that. And if I can get that. I am confident that I 
can demonstrate the utter groundlessness of all these charges, or pre- 
tended charges, against the Commissioners. 1 expect to establish, in- 
deed the evidence lias already established, that not only has there been 
no fraud in the construction of this building, but that there has been no 
extravagance; that there has been nothing whatever justifying censure. 
On the contrary, there has been an honest and praiseworthy attempt to 
perform a great public service and a successful performance of a great 
public service. 

1 have further to say, in asking for this impartial hearing from the 
Committee, that it has been rare in my experience that there has been 
such an attempt to forestall the action of a committee by the discussion 
in the newspapers, as has taken place in this particular case. Many 
statements of witnesses have been misunderstood and misreported, sen- 
sational headlines have been affixed which have done immense damage, 
irretrievable harm to innocent, deserving and honest men ; and finally 
I read in one of the papers only yesterday a statement of the opinion of 
one of this Committee as to the decision which would be rendered. I 
do not suppose for one moment that any gentleman of this Committee 



47 

said any such thing, or said anything on the subject ; but I say that 
these newspaper reports, growing out of the desire of somebody to taik 
about a matter which was before a judicial tribunal for decision, has 
made it peculiarly difficult to discuss this question upon its merits as it 
ought to be discussed. 

I shall assume that, after all, the Anglo-Saxon love of fair play re- 
mains in this Committee and will govern its action. I have confidence 
that those Commissioners are going to be judged upon the law and the 
evidence; that if they are shewn to have violated any provision of the 
law you will say so; and that if, on the contrary, that fact is not estab- 
lished, you will not hesitate to say that. And I believe that notwith- 
standing the impulse which seems in a most extraordinary way to seize 
upon people at times to say ill of public men, and to believe ill about 
them, you will be better satisfied if you can honestly say as the result of 
this investigation that not a single charge has been established against 
the Commissioners. 

Briefly, to state the history of this proceeding, let me recall your at- 
tention to the fact that the subject of the enlargement of the Court 
House had been under discussion for many years in Norfolk County 
prior to the election of 1891, but that at that time it was made an issue 
by the fact that one of the political parties took strong grounds in favor 
of the changes, and that that naturally led the Commissioners seriously 
to consider the matter. Early in 1892 it was determined by the Commis- 
sioners that they would make alterations and additions to the building. 
The building, as some of you will recollect, consisted at that time of the 
front wing, and of a rear extension in which was the old Superior and 
Supreme Court room, there being only one Court room in the building. 
There was an old dome upon the building. The Court room itself was 
some feet lower than the general level of the second floor, the ctaircases 
were very steep and hard to use, the minor conveniences of the Court 
House were very slim, and altogether it was an antiquated building un- 
suitable for the uses of a great, rich and prosperous county like Norfolk 
County. 

In January, 1802, as a result of the preliminary inquiries that had 
been made, the Commissioners contracted with the firm of Wait & 
Cutter, experienced and competent architects, to make the plans for the 
alteration that was then proposed. On the 2Sth of April, 1892, the first 
contract, that is, the one with Mr. Willcutt, was made, and from that 
time untill June, 1895, a period of more than three years, the Court 
House was in process of construction. It was a peculiarly difficult work 
from the fact not only that it was the alteration of an old building, 
which, as everybody understands, is much harder than the construction 
of a new one, but it was the alteration of an old building and the mak- 
ing of large additions in such a way that nobody should be intefered 
with in the conduct of the work necessary in the Court House. The Su- 
preme Court, the Superior Court, and the Probate Court, all held their 
sessions in the building during the entire three years while the work 



■Is 

was going on; the Registry of Deeds and the Registry of Probate re- 
mained in the building; and those of you who had occasion to do bus- 
iness in the Court House during those three years know that it required 
peculiar skill, an unusual amount of time, and, undoubtedly, some con- 
siderable additional expense in doing the work in such a way that the 
regular business of the County should not be interfered with, and that 
no unnecessary expense should be incurred in the hiring of accommoda- 
tions outside the building. 

The Commissioners, from the beginning to the end, employed first 
class talent in every department. They employed as architects men who 
were personally unknown to them, but who had a good reputation and 
large experience, growing out of their recent admirable work in Middle- 
sex County, in the construction of the Probate Court House, as well as 
in work throughout the Commonwealth, in designing and erecting large 
and important buildings. The Commissioners employed in every in- 
stance skilled, reputable and experienced mechanics, and in every in- 
stance where, by any lair construction of the law they were bound to do 
so, they advertised for proposals, and took the lowest bid, and in some 
instances, as I shall show, where no obligation rested upon them, either 
to adveri ise or to invite competition, they either advertised or else took 
pains to get competition from the best mechanics in that particular line. 
Xo better mechanics, no more honest or reputable men were ever em- 
ployed on any building, private or public, in this Commonwealth, than 
were employed upon this building, from Mr. Willcutt and Mr. Whit- 
comb, through the Bates Machine Company, ami Mr. Sanborn, and 
Keeler & Co.. and HollingS & Co. 

It is not very material in this case to consider the precise cost of the 
building, but I have taken the trouble to go over these schedules with 
a view of presenting the items of the cost in a, little different form from 
tliat in which they have been given in (he evidence, in order that both 
this Committee and the public may know correctly what this building 
has cost. And. in figuring that cost, l have excluded all that pertains 
to the cost of furnishing the building, for, although that has been 
lumped with the other items in the general discussion of this case,] 
have never known before the cost of furnishing a building to lie in- 
cluded in the cost of the building itself. When we build a house for 
ourselves we consider that the cost of that house stops with the con- 
struction of the building itself, and that what we add to it by way of 
furniture, or carpets, or pictures, or gas fixtures, is furnishing, which 
U'oes under a different head. 

As I figure the cost of the building, everything that properly should 
enter into it, comes to $33S,S>9S.S2, And that is made up ;is follows, and 
! beg the Committee to observe what the items are. 

Lyman I). Willcutt received under his first contract $10,331.72; 
under the second contract, $82,056.47; under the third contract, $136,- 
:;is.7<>; making a total of $22S,736.S9. In other words, more than two- 



49 

thirds of the entire cost of this building were paid to Mr. VVillcutt for 
the contracts and the extras under those contracts performed by him. 

B. D. Whitcomb & Co., carpenters, received under their contract 
and for extras $50,307.29. 

Albert D. Franklin received under his contract $20,227.21. 

Wait & Cutter were paid as architects $17,909.40. 

I have allowed as a part of the cost of the building, although in my 
judgment it does not necessarily or properly belong there, so much of 
Keeler's bill as maybe regarded as permanent fixtures, and that amount- 
was stated in the evidence Monday as $9397. 

Haberstroh & Co. were paid for painting $'3035. 

And of the miscellaneous items I allow everything, except certain 
items which I shall state in a moment, which I take out for the furnish- 
ing. I allow $9386.03. 

That makes the total of $338,098.82. 

1 may remark in passing, and it will have a bearing upon something 
which I shall say hereafter, that the Committee will observe that 
nothing is paid in the cost of this construction to Bates & Co., except 
the items I shall refer to in the miscellaneous, and nothing is paid to 
Sanborn, because they came in, as the Committee will remember, as 
sub contractors under VVillcutt, who was the lowest bidder. 

Mr. Storey. To a certain extent. Bates didn't come in under 
Willcutt except to a limited extent. 

Mr. Morse. Well, if I don't state this correctly, I shail of course 
have my errors shown, but I think before I get through I will make this 
clear. In passing let me say that for the first contract there were the 
following bidders: L. D. VVillcutt, Connery & Wentworth, Da\ . d 11. 
Jacobs & Son, Augustus Lothrop, M. S. & G. N. Miller, and Join. Q. A. 
Field ; and that of all those bidders Mr. Willcutt, who is charged here 
as guilty of gross fraud upon this County, was the lowest bidder, and! 
that the amount that he bid was about one-half the amount bid by Mr. 
Field. 

Let me remind the Committee further that for the second contract 
Mr. Willcutt competed with Connery & Wentworth, David 11. Jacobs 
& Son, M. S. & G. N. Miller, and Hamilton, Balcomb & Peterson, and 
that he was the lowest bidden - in that ease, and was awarded the contract 
because he was the lowest bidder. And that for the third contract he 
was the lowest bidder with Connery & Wentworth, M. .S. A; G N". 
Miller, and Gooch & Pray. This Committee knows perfectly well that 
all of these men are reputable and experienced mechanics. And yet I 
beg the Committee to observe that although two-thirds of the entire 
cosl of this Court House, and more than two-thirds, went to Mr. Will- 
cutt, who was the lowest bidder on all these contracts, there is nothing 
in the long and honorable reputation of Mr. Willcutt that has • I 
him from the shafts that have been directed against every person con- 
nected with the construction of this building; and that when my 



50 

brother undertook to formulate charges against these parties, he said 
that he charged fraud upon Mr. Willcutt in his conduct of this business. 
The furnishing of the Court House cost, according to my figures, 
§44,820.10. Thai includes the remainder of Keeler's bills, beyond that 
which was allowed on the cost of the building, this being $34,873.29; IIol- 
Lings' bill, $0093.50; Pray's three bills, $1095, $115.50 and $100; French's 
three hills, $20.04, $21 and $47.50; Shreve, Crump A: Low's bill, $200; 
Cotton's two bills, one of $1042.03 and the other $20.25. 

All those items were in the nature of furniture— carpets, rugs, 
chairs, tables, gas fixtures, clock and crockery. 

Fn addition to these items, I have made a third head of the work at 
the jail, which in my humble opinion does not come within the province 
of this Committee to examine, but it has been considered in the evidence 
on one side and the other, and so, of course, I shall have to refer to it. 
But I have made it a separate item because it is not in any proper sense 
of the word a part of the cost of the construction <A' the Court House, 
and ought not to be added for the purpose of swelling the apparent cost, 
of the building. That work amounts to $S007.00; and includes Bates' 
bill for engine, dynamo and fittings, $0050; Willcutt's bill lor founda- 
tion, S41S.40: Bates' bill for altering dynamo, $1000, and for special pul- 
leys, $20.50. 

Now, if you add to the cost of the construction of the Court House 
! osl of the furnishing, and the cost of the work at the jail, which has 
this connection with the Court House that the electric light is sup- 
plied from the plant at the jail, you have a total of $301,025.82, which is 
the entire or, I side limit under am \ iew of the case which this investiga- 
1 cover. 
The result of this work of more than three years of skill on the part 
of the architects, of faithful labor on the part of the mechanics, of care- 
ful supervision on the part of the Commissioners, has been to give to 
tin County what, I undertake to sa\ is the finest Court House in this 
monwearth : a delight to the eye, with every convenience that 
and experience •■an suggest, good for the next half century to 
come for all the uses of the County, and built with such economy and 
care by the Commissioners that not a dollar of permanent indebtedness 
li:: been incurred beyond the lean of £125,000, which will lie paid inside 
n years, and that all the expenses have been met by judicious man- 
en! i >f the cash balances in the treasury of the County. 

Such a, building as that, instead of being an object of censure, should 

■t of commendation. Outside of the limited number that have 

seen fit to raise these questions about the conduct of the Commission 

ers, there is and there can be but one opinion in regard to the success oi 

this work. One of the Senators in the discussion of the order for the 

tment of this Committee, said: ''The Commissioners of out 

( "ountj have given to the citizens of Norfolk a Court House of true mag 

nificence. Norfolk County does not regret the expenditure of a dollai 

: . noneys have been judiciously and honestly expei 



51 

No County in the State can better afford the luxury." And in the ex- 
ercises at the dedication of this building in June, 1805, a Judge of one 
of our courts, a lifelong - resident of Pedham, honored everywhere as a 
true representative of the best spirit of the County, Judge Ely, said in 
his address: 

"Animated by something of the spirit that I have attempted to por- 
tray, we are convened here to tell the story of the origin of Norfolk 
County, to review its first century of existence, and, at the same time, 
to dedicate to public uses this magnificent and commodious Temple of 
Justice, whose completion so fitly ushers in its second century." 

And in another place, speaking of the old structures which were 
used, he says : 

"Before leaving this earliest Court House of our County, allow me 
to quote a brief passage written by Br. Ames, because it is' character- 
istic not only of 1795, but of 1S27 and 1895, and indeed of all ages. In 
March, 1795, he writes: 'The Court House raised last Fall is ruinous, 
open boarded, not wholly shingled, and by reason of a large committee 
to carry on the building it has hung heavy, slow, and expensive, much 
more than if it had been put out at a good price to a single person. And 
it is by some thought the People will grumble at the expense beyond 
what they contemplated.' " 

Then the Judge adds : 

"Truly one generation passeth away and another generation cometh, 
but the grumbler abideth forever." 

And later he says : 

"In 1892 the work began whose completion we are here to celebrate. 
This work is much more than an enlargement. While our Board of 
County Commissioners have preserved as far as practicable the work 
done in I860 and 1861, they have completed their work in conformity to 
the best available rules of architectural symmetry and beauty. The 
ground plan of the old building necessarily controlled the form of the 
new edifice, but in the interior arrangement and litness it is a new 
Court House. The best skill of the architect, the builder and the dec- 
orator is exemplified in its construction. 

"It stands and will stand a monument of the wisdom and foresight 
and independence of our County Commissioners. It stands and will, 
stand a monument of the liberal and enlightened public sentiment of 
the proud, spiritual and wealthy County of Norfolk. It is worthy of 
her. But with all its magnificence of niarble halls and gilded adorn- 
ments, it is no more than worthy of her. Our peoale have never failed 
to meet the needs of our County with a generous hand." 

I have said more than once during the course of the hearing that we 
regretted that the Committee had not required these specifications to 
be in writing, and to be precise and definite; but I am grateful for what 
was finally accomplished, in securing, at the close of the testimony for 
the prosecution, a statement from my learned brother, somewhat vague 
but still to some extent helpful in its precision, in regard to what would 
be relied upon by the prosecution. I propose now to take up these dif- 
ferent charges, and to consider them separately, and I trust fairly, for 
the purpose of satisfying the Committee that there is nothing in any of 
them Avorthy of their serious consideration, nothing which reflects in 
any way, degree or manner, either upon the fidelity or integrity of the 
present Board of County Commissioners. They are to be found in Vol. 



52 

12, beginning at p. 1409. I will read the language which my brother used, 
in order that I may not do injustice in any way to his claim, or tail to 
apprehend its meaning, and to discuss it fairly. These charges divide 
themselves under two general heads. One relates to what I shall call 
technical violation of the Statutes, which, if proved, would amount to 
nothing more than u failure to observe provisions which are directory 
simply in reference to the duty of the County Commissioners. The sec- 
ond set of charges involves a claim of fraud on the part of the Commis- 
sioners, and of the architects, and of everybody connected witli the con- 
struction of the Court House, with the exception I believe of two. And 
I may remark in passing that what led my brother to except from this 
general conspiracy two persons, Mr. Haberstroh and Mr. Whitcomb, is 
more than I can understand. 

Mr. Storey. Lack of time, Mr. Morse. 

Mi:. Morse. Lack of time, my brother says, is all that led him to 
except them. I will take that statement, and I believe that lack of time 
is the only thing that led my brother to except from this charge of con- 
spiracy and fraud, Mr. Haberstroh and Mr. Whitcomb. If my brother 
had had more time he intimates that he would have made the same 
charge against the best known decorator in JJoston, and against one of 
the Commissioners on the construction of the State House. 

Mi;. Storey. I should have made an investigation, Mr. Morse ; I 
did not say I should have made the charge. 

Mi;. Morse. My brother would have made no more investigation 
than he has made here, Every charge against these parties was made 
without investigation. The first sentence, the tirst question put to Mr. 
Wait upon the stand, was a denunciation of Mr. Wait, as the first ques- 
tion put to Mr. Morrell was an insinuation against Mr. Morrell. I will 
come back, however, to the charges as they are formulated. On page 
1409 Mr. Story calls attention to the provisions of the statute governing 
the action of the County Commissioners, and says that "The first pro- 
vision is that which requires the County Commissioners to state to the 
Legislature what money they propose to spend, and how they propose 
to spend it. For a certain portion of the period under investigation, the 
law on this subject is found in the Public Statutes. After the passage 
of the Statute of is;)."), that became the law in tins matter. I think Mr. 
Morse must be prepared to defend his clients against the charge that 
they have violated the provisions of that Statute, that they have not 
stated to the Legislature the sums which they proposed to expend, that 
they have made statements to the Legislature which were misleading 
statements, made for the purpose of indicating that they would require 
for tin' purpose of this Court House much smaller sums than they knew 
they would require at the time that the statements were made." 

Mr. Chairman, that is a charge that the Commissioners, in their es- 
timates submitted to the Legislature of 1896, violated the Statute of IS95 
That Statute is Chapter \4:\ of the Acts of that year and it was passed, if 
-4 recollect rightly, in March of that year. The first estimate or report 



53 

submitted by Commissioners under it was in December, 1895. My first 
remark to the Committee is that that subject is not in any way involved 
in this inquiry. The duties of this Committee are to determine whether, 
in the course of the construction and enlargement and repairs and fur- 
nishings of the Court House, which stopped in June, 1895, the Commis- 
sioners have violated any law, and it is no part of the province of this 
Committee to inquire or to determine whether the County Commission- 
ers, in their communication to the Legislature in December, 1S95, 
violated Chapter 143 of the Statutes of 1895,— it has nothing to do with 
the question of the cost of the construction or enlargement or repairs of 
the Court House. This Committee was not appointed to inquire 
whether the County Commissioners had ever violated any law of any 
kind, but simply to determine whether in the construction and enlarge- 
ment and repairs and furnishing of the Court House, which stopped in 
June, 1895, the Commissioners had violated any law. But if the Com- 
mittee should think that that matter is within their province, as I re- 
spectfully submit it is not, I make them two answers to the suggestion 
or claim that the law has been violated. First. I call attention of the 
Committee to the fact that the law is directory simply. It undertakes 
to prescribe the duty of the County Commissioners ; it does not affix a 
penalty in case of failure to perform that duty. It simply points out to 
the Commissioners what is expected and required of them. It is the 
duty of the Commissioners, of course, to comply with that, and they 
would be to blame if they had not done so, but still it is not a criminal 
statute in the ordinary sense of the word. 

In the second place I have to say that the Commissioners did sub- 
mit fairly and truly to the Legislature their estimate of the estimated 
expense. Estimates of expense are mere matters of opinion. When the 
selectmen of a town make their annual report and estimate the expenses 
for the ensuing year, as prudent men they naturally include all the 
items which may under any circumstances be required. It may turn 
out that an amount estimated as required for one purpose is not needed 
and that it will be convenient and desirable to use it for another. But 
there was no concealment and no misrepresentation in regard to all the 
essential facts. The Commissioners submitted to the Committee, as 
they have testified here, their estimates, and they were accepted by the 
Committee. And that leads me to say finally on this point that the 
only body that was competent to deal with the question of the sufficiency 
of those estimates was that Committee. If the Committee on County 
Accounts, upon receiving those estimates from the County Commis- 
sioners, had reported that they were not in proper form or were not 
satisfactory, that would have been a matter directly for the considera- 
tion of the Legislature ; but the Committee did nothing of the sort. 
My brother may suggest that it was due to the hearings before that 
Committee that this investigation was started. Be it so. That has 
nothing to do with the point that I am now making, that so far as the 
matterof submitting the estimates was concerned thc\ were accepted 






by the Committee, and the records of t fie Legislature will show that 
they were accepted, as being a sufficient compliance with the law. 

The next charge against the Commissioners is to be found on page 
1410: 

"The next charge is that, being authorized by the Legislature to 
spend $200,000 on this Court House, they have spent four." 

That charge is very easily answered, In the first place, they have 
not spent $400,000 in the erection of the Court House, as I have shown, 
but $340,000. Still, 1 don't make any point on that so far as this ques- 
tion is to lie considered. My claim is that my brother is entirely mis- 
taken in his opinion or theory of the law which prompts him to make 
that charge. It is true that the Legislature authorized loans to be made 
to the extent of $200,000 for the construction of the Court House, but 
the Commissioners— 

Mi;. Storey. To be raised by taxation or loan? 

Mi;. Morse. To be raised by taxation or loans, especially those two 
items of $125,000 and $75,000. These were in addition to the appropria- 
tions which were referred to in the estimates submitted by the Commis- 
sioners each year, and were in addition to the amounts available to the 
Commissioners, by reason of (he amount voted by the Legislature to be 
raised for general purposes. My 1 trot her has assumed that the authority 
of the Commissioners of Norfolk County to construct this Court House 
arose from, or is limited by, those two Acts of the Legislature. This is 
not a, correct statement of the law. Public Statutes, chapter 22, section 
20, give complete authority to the Commissioners to build court houses 
and to make additions to them, and any Board of ( 'ounty ( lommissioners 
in this State, certainly prior to the Statute of 1S95, could proceed so far 
as the amounts available in their treasury, or the amount which they 
were authorized by general law to borrow, could lie obtained, to build a 
new court house or to repair an old one. The only effect of the, Statute 
of 1S02 and the Statute of 1804 was to give additional authority to the 
Commissioners, so far as the incurring of permanent loans was con- 
cerned. The law on this subject was well staled in the case from which 
my brother read, relating to Bristol County. 

Mr. Chairman, is this Committee going to hold that the Commis- 
sioners, who went ahead, apparently with the full knowledge and ap- 
proval of Norfolk County, through 1S02, 1893, 1894 and 1895, and built 
this Court House under the direct authority of express language of the 
Public Statutes, were violating the law? Will they accept such technical 
construction, such an unreasonable construction of the Statutes as to 
assume that the Legislature, bypassing the Acts of 1892 and 1894, in- 
tended to repeal by implication, so far as Norfolk County was con- 
cerned, the general authority which was given to all County Commis- 
sioners throughout the State? I shall spend no time over that point. 

The next charge is to be found on page 1410. 

"A third charge is that, being required by law to make report 
annually, so that the tax-payers of the County may see what has been 



55 

done with their money, they have, evidently by intention, disguised the 
amount expended on this Court House by putting various payments, 
which are properly chargeable to this public work, under other heads, 
and the specifications of that will be found in the cross-examination of 
Mr. Morrell, in which I called his attention to the amounts which were 
charged to miscellaneous, the amounts which were charged to fuel, 
lighting and supplies, the amounts which were charged to variousheads 
that I specified, all of which were properly charges against the appro- 
priation for the building of the Court House." 

I have looked at the cross-examination of Mr. Morrell, to which my 
brother refers, in order that I might ascertain what are the henious of- 
fences which are here charged upon the County Commissioners. 1 find 
that the first expense to which my brother called attention, was the 
amount of $925 paid Frederic Tudor, who was employed as sanitary and 
ventilating engineer. I may remark, perhaps, in passing, that Mr. Tudor 
has escaped the general flood of charges, and his name I should add to 
those of Mr. Haberstroh and Mr. AVhitcomb. 

This examination appears on page 204 of Vol Linic 4. It seems that 
Mr. Tudor was paid $025 in all for his services, and that of that sum $400 
was charged by the Commissioners on the. account of the addition, $325 
to the cost of repairs and furnishing, and $200 for miscellaneous. Every 
one of those items appears in the printed report of the County Commis- 
sioners. The question of where the item should go is a matter of book- 
keeping, merely, governed partly by the judgment of the Commissioners 
as to where the item should belong, partly by consideration of the fact 
that in their original estimates they had counted upon a certain sum 
under these different heads; and, while I do not understand that it has 
been the practice of the County Treasurer to open separate accounts, 
crediting each account with the amouni of the estimate made by the 
County Commissioners, and while the distinction between the different 
heads is a purely arbitrary matter and does not concern anybody, except 
so far as book-keeping may concern those interested in that, and while 
the statement of the item under one head gives just as much informa- 
tion as it does under another, I say that this division, although an arbi- 
trary one, cannot be held by this Committee to have been an unfair one. 

Mr. Tudor's work related both to the construction of the new work 
and to the repair of the old. I should like to know upon what principle 
it can be said that work of that kind, which had to do with ventilating 
and heating both the old building and the new building, might not be 
charged, a part of it to the cost of the addition and a part of it to the 
cost of repairs, or why a part of it might, no), be charged to miscella- 
neous. And my brother Joy suggests— which may, perhaps, save this 
from my friend's censorious remarks— that the $200 item was charged to 
miscellaneous under Mr. Wiggin's administration. So in regard to Mr. 
Haberstroh— $2000 of his work was charged to the additions, and $1035 
to repairs. My brother seriously makes a point about that. Why 
shouldn't it have been so divided? There was the old work, and there 
was the new work. Part of this work was in the nature of repairs, part 
of it was in the nature of new construction. 



56 

x,. i regard to Mr, Co a, who did work' in connection with the 

grading, and was paid $3i')03 Tart of that was charged to the addition. 
$200; part to repairs and fi rnishings, $425; and most of it, $2897.75, to 
i iscellaneous— and why sh ' 'n't it have been charged to miscellane- 
ous? What objection is there to charging to miscellaneous expense all 
the cost involved in gradii ? and similar work about the building? 

So my brother gravely >sk.s Mr. Morrell, and presses him with great 
severity, if la' did not char? !1 of Mr. Hollings' lull to repairs and fur- 
i ishings, and he says lie did. c\ course lie did. It was properly charged 
there, and if my brother un 'ertakes to transfer the cost of gas and elec- 
trii i inres from furnishings- to cost of construction of a building, 1 
shall simply suggest that his knowledge of erection of buildings is not 
as profound as his knowledge f law. 

So Wait & Cutter's hi; 1 as divided, as appears on page -jot of Vol- 
ume 4, part of it going to ■ klitions and part to repairs. And it was 
I i ly divided. Mr. Morrell said in his answers it was an artificial 

division, by which I understand him to mean an arbitrary division. 
There wasn't any way exactly of distributing the two parts of the work. 
It was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that in their original esti- 
mate oi the work thej trad egarded certain items as calling for certain 
expense, and in their imagi ary account of those different items, which 
neither they nor the Count} Treasurer ever kept, they found it more 
consistent to charge these items to those different accounts. 

] . a informed by one oi the < 'ommissioners that the second contract 
with Mr. Willcutt, which was made under Mr. Wiggin's administration, 
was divided in the same w;: , divided in the contoact. So in respect to 
Mr. Franklin's account— part of it appears to have been charged to the 
ad lition, part to repairs, a perfectly proper division. In regard to Mr. 
\\ illcutt's, the division was addition, repairs and miscellaneous. These 
words were written right into the contract. 

I ;he contract of Mr. Willcutt, $59,250 for the additions, $20,000 for 
Un- additions, repairs and i ' anges in the old building. Von will find the 
division of the payments to Mr. Willcutt on page 200, Volume 4. 

So my brother puis: ed Mr. Morrell as to why the charge of Mr. 
JSndicotl for surveying was charged to the account of highways and 
bridges. 1; docs not seem t< i ie to require a great deal of argument or 
<!i,-.-uss:(>,i to satisfy the Ci : mittee that the charge of a surveyor for 
work done in connection with the ways about the Court House might 
properly be charged to higl ' 

Again and this is the last item in the cross-examination of Mr. 
Morrell he asks whj the cost of Mr. Dates' work at the jail, in putting 
i' ■ electric light plant, was iharged to supplies, fuel and repairs. Why 
shouldn't it be'.' A changi ich involved the. taking out of the former 
plant, and substituting a nei on an old building— what is that but a re- 
pairof the building ? So at I say, upon a fair review of this list of 
items, and 1 have now slated them all, it will appear that the di\ 
made '", the Countv Comn issi mors was a correct division, in fact that 



57 

it was justified by the circumstances, but that, whether so or not, it was 
a division which was absolutely harmless, which deceived nobody and 
involved nothing whatever. Every item was stated in the printed re- 
port and the work that was done was stated. 

The next charge, the fourth charge, is found on page 1411, and is 
prefaced by a statement that "The statute of 1895 requires that they 
(the Commissioners) shall specify in detail exactly the purpose for which 
they want money and the amount which they expect to need for each 
purpose, and they are by law prohibited from spending money appro- 
priated for one purpose for any other, but are permitted for written 
reasons stated to make a transfer from one appropriation to another. 
I shall claim that, upon the evidence, they came before the Committee 
—or. rather, they came before the Committee and stated that they 
should require certain sums for certain specific purposes, with the in- 
tention, when they made that statement, of using the money for a dif- 
ferent purpose, and that they transferred from the appropriation made 
for highways and bridges and for various other things sums to the ap- 
propriation for the County Court House or to various heads, out of 
which was drawn money expended in the construction of. the County 
Court House, without that written statement of reasons which the 
statute requires and in fraud of the Legislature. " 

1 say in reference to this charge, as I did about the first one, that it 
is not involved in this inquiry before the Committee. 

I say that that is not an inquiry in regard to the violation of law in 
regard to the violation of law in the construction of the Court House. 
But I have various answers to make to it, assuming— as I will do for 
the purposes of the argument— that the charge is properly before the 
Committee. First I have to say that these transfers were in fact made 
before the statute of 1895 went into effect. Therefore they could not be 
in violation of that law. 

The Committee will remember that Mr. Wiggin testified— Volume 
14, page 1892— that they had had the opinion of Judge Hoar as to their 
right to use general balances for the purpose of any legitimate County 
expense ; and my claim is that at the time when these payments were in 
fact made by the County Commissioners, they had the right to use those 
general balances for that purpose, and that their subsequent transfer 
was an entirely unnecessary act. If they had made the payments when 
they were authorized to make them, as they were, their subsequent 
transfer in a mistaken notion of the necessity of compliance with that 
statute, cannot possibly work against them, or be of any consequence 
here. 

In tliis connection I wish to say a word in reference to the methods 
pursued by the County Commissioners in their business, and the funds 
which they held available for the construction of, and addition to, and 
furnishing of the Court House. They arc suminerized in Schedule H of 
the statements prepared and submitted by Mr. Herrick, the accountant 
employed by the County Commissioners. 1 cannot make them any 



08 

tions. Tin I wish to read them here in ("Tiler 

t the i mmitt< m;i tly the position which we un- 

md had a right to take, 
i m this work. 
NJ M rsi I reread I e statemei red by Mr. Herrick, which 

led. 
With tl I Li 1S95, therefore, all the expenses were 

iet oni of the i ; and and the money available, and legally avail- 

ich the money was spent; and the result, as 

?tated, is tl I I i mnty has obtained this building without the 

incurring of any per - 25,000, which will be paid 

in the course ol d it while it holds the lowest 

rate of taxation of any county in this state. N i County, as yon 

■ee from di - paratively small amount 

for this temporary pur taxation is the 

of any county in 1 

- ' transfer of balances is 

t'er at all, that whatever was done 
by the Commis 1 he money had been 

the law as d prior to the 

: be a si retch of the pro' I duty 

d the Con es msible 

-■ • 

r 
lission. meaning by that 
■ ent. Unles means that 

irld had th< 

1 build- 

[ the Co I at the least possibli 

ated by unworthy or 

iose was ad that 

_ i ertainly until the contrary is 

the statute si ■ found, the 

u with thi emnation : they 

?e for it in the en eumstances u idei which 

;sio > we iced, as that of men trying to do their duty. 

r the prosecuting counsel is thai the Com- 

the statute providing that contracts for public 

5S i be a rded after advertisement in public newspapers. First 

ttention of I ! e to the fact that my brother in that 

Efi n nt times during the hearings. 

isi lj used the words ''public work'" in place of the words "pub- 

lic works'" which the si ;es. He has used the word "work"' in- 

B ii have helped using it intentionally, because he 

has sought to our a construction upon the statute which is not justified 

the f. The language of the statute is to be found in se-c- 



59 

tion 22 of chapter 22 of the Public Statutes. But I will read from ray 
brother's opening statement, wherein the section was correctly quoted: 

"All contracts for public works made by the Commissioners shall, if 
exceeding $300 in amount, be made in writing, after notice for proposals 
therefor has been published at least three times in some newspaper pub- 
lished in the county, city or town interested in the work contracted for." 

My brother has argued as if all contracts for any kind of public 
work— meaning by that any kind of public employment or public ser- 
vice or in regard to public property— must be in writing after advertise- 
ment therefor. If the Legislature had intended that it could easily 
have said so. If the Legislature had intended that County Commis- 
sioners should not have authority to spend more than $300 for any pur. 
pose unless after an advertisement in a newspaper and a contract there- 
for in writing, the statute would have said so. The statute does not 
say so, and no Board of County Commissioners, in Norfolk County or 
any other County in this State, has ever so construed the statute. Mr. 
Wiggin is certainly as experienced and as careful as any Commissioner 
could be. I do not claim that his opinion of the law is infallible, but I 
do submit that the construction of the law which he himself laid down 
and enforced during the term that he held this office— while perhaps not 
conclusive as to what. the law is— furnishes very strong evidence of what 
the correct construction by an intelligent man should be. My definition 
of that section is that all contracts involving the construction of any 
permanent public structures should be in writing. If a carpet is bought 
which cosr $350, it is not necessary to advertise for that : if a steam en- 
gine i.s put in which costs $500 or $1000, it is not necessary to advertise 
for that : if a room is painted, if any new furniture is bought, it is not 
necessary to advertise for those things. They are not public works. It 
is a perversion of language to call them public works. If my brother's 
construction and reading of the law was correct and the statute read 
•'public work.'' it might be different. Then he could say that anything 
that involved public service of over $300 needed to be in writing. But 
the statute means anything involving the construction of permanent 
structures. I agree that if the Commissioners propose to build a new 
building they ought to advertise for it. they ought to make a written 
contract for it. that that is what the statute contemplates. 

I am inclined to think that if they were to construct an important 
highway, county way. the statute contemplates that that should lie 
done, if done by contract certainly, after advertisement and by written 
contract. But I deny the proposition that any expenditure over $300 
made by the County Commissioners is to be under written contract : 
and I point to the invariable practice of the County Commissioners 
of that county, and I might say of all other counties, as sustaining 
my proposition. 

What contracts, then, if this definition is correct, fall under the 
class of those which ought to have been advertised"? The only con- 
tracts that ought to have been advertised were those that had to do 



60 

with the permanent building. And the} wen- advertised. The Willcutt 
contracts were all of them let after advertisement, and all those con- 
tracts were in writing'- The Whitcomb contract was let after advertise- 
ment, and that contract was in writing. The Franklin contract, which 
to my mind is not a contract that needed to have been advertised, was 
advertised, or rather the bids for it were advertised, and that contract 
was in writing. No other contract was a contract for public, works. 
The contract with Wait & Cutter, for services as architects, was not a 
contract for public works. Who ever heard of such a thing as public 
officials advertising that bids will lie received from architects for plans 
and for prices in competition'? If such a thing was done, it is an un- 
worthy thing to do, which every architect of standing in his profession, 
and every other right-minded man, will condemn as improper, just as 
much as if a person were to advertise tor bids from a physician, com- 
peting bids for the cure of a. patient in his house. The work done by 
Mr. Keeler, in making furniture, was not a contract for public works 
which needed to lie advertised for, although the Committee will remem- 
ber that that was obtained only after competition with three of the best 
and most reputable dealers in this city. The contract with Haberstroh 
did not have to be advertised for. The contract for the various items of 
furnishing did not have to be advertised tor. Neither did the contract 
for putting in the jail electric plant which, as I have already argued. 
is outside of the province of t his examination— need to lie advertised for. 

The Committee will hesitate to adopt a construction of the statute 
so severe as to impose upon the County Commissioners duties, which no 
Board in this Commonwealth has ever fell that they were obliged to 
bear. 

I may refer, upon this point, to the evidence mentioned by my 
brother Grover, at page 1438 of Yol. L2, which was subsequently abun- 
dantly supported by the documentary proof which was put in, to the 
effect thai for years the County Commissioners have acted, not upon 
my brothei- Storey's construction of the law, but upon our construction 
of the law. On the 16th of March, 1889, the County Commissioners 
paid one Menhimick $840.20 for work at the Dedham jail. In July, 18S9, 
they paid Perry & Company $735 for piping in the jail. March 18th, oi 
the same year, they paid the same firm $2,531.45 for piping. October 7th, 
1891, they paid A. II. Davenport, for a counter and gate, s;;i;:,. February 
4, 1889, they paid one Fales, for bricking around the boiler, etc., $655. 
On the 31st of January, 1889, they paid a bill— and Mr. Grover quotes it 
exactly- "To merchandise as per bill rendered, $1,400." July LO, 1S89, 
they paid John T. Langford, for piping for the water works, $3,220.97. 
March 8th, ISS9, they paid the Sawyer-Mann Electric Company $2,803.S8. 
March -nth., LS89, they paid the Exeter Machine Works, for engine, etc., 
$489.35. They paid Mr. Davenport for furniture, $1,542. None of those 
bills were paid under written contracts ; none of those were paid upon 
bids advertised for. And they did not need to lie advertised. Nobody 
ever thought at that time of any such construction of the statute. It 



01 

remained for my brother, in his search for something on which to hang 
these Commissioners, to set np a construction of the law against the 
language of the statute, against the practical construction of the 
statute, and against the reason of every sensible man. When the law 
provides in terms that no county commission shall spend more than 
$300, unless they have advertised for competing bids upon the subject 
matter of the expenditure, and have made a contract for that expendi- 
ture, it will be time enough to seek to convict a Board of violation of 
duty in that regard, because they did not advertise. But, under the 
present law, there was no such necessity resting upon the Board. 

The seventh specification against the Commissioners is a violation 
of the statute in not delivering bills or vouchers to the County Treas- 
urer. He says that the bills or vouchers were not delivered to the 
County Treasurer. The language of the statute is, the bills or evidence 
of the indebtedness. And it does not require both . It may be the bills, 
the itemized bills, or it may be the evidence. And one is a sufficient 
compliance with the law. The whole of this charge, Mr. Chairman, 
rests upon the fact that the County Commissioners, until the final 
settlements with the different contractors were made, did not deliver to 
the County Treasurer the itemized bills of their different payments. 
They did, in everp instance, delivec the certificate of the architect in re- 
gard to the amount due. My contention is, that that was a full com- 
pliance with the law. It was the ordinary way in which work of this 
kind is done. It is testified to by Mr. Willcutt and I think by the archi- 
tect, that that is the way in which all large public works are constructed. 
And any man who is building a house with the assistance of an archi- 
tect, knows that he never sees an itemized bill, — I won't say it is 
so with all men, but it is the experience of many that they never see an 
itemized bill until they make their final settlement, and that they rest 
upon the. honesty and the fidelity of the architect to scrutinize those 
bills, and pay upon their certificates and rest upon them until the final 
settlement is made. For what purpose is an architect employed, except 
to examine the work as it progresses, and the charges that are presented, 
and to certify to the parties who employ him how much is due ? What 
higher evidence of the indebtedness is there than his certificate ? And 
when the County Commissioners took that certificate, and examined as 
they did in every instance, the bills in the architects' hands to satisfy 
themselves that they conformed to the amounts certified, and then 
handed that certificate, with their approval, to the County Treasurer, 
what higher evidence could they furnish to the County Treasurer of the 
amount which he should pay than what they did furnish? It is per- 
fectly true that the County Commissioners did not, as the work pro- 
gressed, furnish itemized bills to the County Treasurer, and they were 
not in his possession. But it is also true that they were in the posses- 
sion of the architects, that the architects examined the bills and exam- 
ined the work ; and that Mr. Morrell personally went to the architects' 
office and compared the amount of those bills with the amount of the 



62 

certificate, in order to have, in addition to the guarantee of the archi- 
tects' certificate, the evidence id' his own senses that the bills were right ; 
and then, upon that evidence, certified the architects' certificate, and 
that that voucher went to the hands of the County Treasurer, and the 
payment was made upon it. 

In the early part of this hearing there was some talk about the 
looseness of the business methods of the County Commissioners. I un- 
dertake to say that that is the best order of business, that no better 
system could be devised and that no better system is acted upon. And 
I will venture to say that every large building in this city, including 
this State House, is being erected to-day under precisely the same system 
of accounts. I believe that if you were to examine you would find that 
the Commissioners of this State House furnish to the Treasurer no other 
evidence as a voucher to him than the architects' certificates which they 
have approved. And I am sure that in the erection of all large buildings 
that is the universal practice. 

I may remark in passing that it is not a question before this Com- 
mittee whether the County Treasurer has complied with the statute 
requiring him to keep on tile itemized bills. If that question should 
arise, it would have to be in some other investigation and would he a 
subject for independent examination. I have nothing to say about it 
here. The only matter involved in this inquiry is the conduct of the 
County Commissioners ; and what 1 claim is, that they have fully com- 
plied with the provision of the Public Statutes which my brother relies 
upon, that the bills of evidence of County indebtedness tor which pay- 
ment was ordered should be delivered, with the order, to the Treasurer. 

The eighth charge is as follows. It is found on page 1414:— 

"The next charge which I think my brother must be prepared to 
meet is a charge that in this matter the interests of the County have 
heei i left absolutely without protection at the hands of the County Com- 
missioners; that the money expended upon this Court House has been 
expended far in excess of a reasonable price for what the county has re- 
ceived; in other words, that the extravagance has been gross." 

In answer to that I have first to submit that the question of extrav- 
agance or the economy employed in the construction of this building is 
not involved in this inquiry, except so far as it may tend to support and 
to prove a charge of fraud. If my brother, from any evidence in regard 
to extravagance, has been able to convince this Committee that these 
Commissioners have violated the statute in respect to any corrupt use of 
the public money, then! agree that evidence relating to gross and ex- 
travagant expenditure is competent to aid him in establishing that pro- 
position. But, as an indepenpent fact and charge, it is not within the 
province of this Committee or of the Legislature, and it has nothing to 
do with the question of the comparative cost, or economy, or extrava- 
gance of a building in Norfolk County. That is a matter winch lies be- 
tween the < lounty Commissioners and their constituents. If the County 
Commissioners, being charged with authority under the statute to spend 



63 

money for certain purposes, spend it foolishly or extravagantly, their 
constituents will call them to account for it very soon, and that is the 
only remedy that there is. It might be that it would be a good plan that 
all expenditures should be voted by the County itself. But under our 
system of government that, has never been found practicable; and, as 
you all know, from the beginning it has been the practice for appropria- 
tions to be made by the Legislature, although the sums are required to 
be raised by taxation of the county. 

My brother makes this charge in the most sweeping manner. 
Listen to it again : 

" In this matter "—that is, in the construction of the Court House 
and in the repairs of the building and in its furnishing— " the interests 
of the County have been left absolutely without protection at the hands 
of the Couuty Commissioners, and the money has been expended far in 
excess of a reasonable price, and the extravagance has been gross.*' Mr. 
Chairman, no greater misrepresentation of the facts has been made from 
the beginning to the end of this case, than that. I will shotv you by the 
figures that it is absolutely unsu pported by one shread of credible evidence, 
and that my brother ought to apologize to this Board and to their con- 
stituents for that charge against them. The interests of the County left 
absolutely without protection, this building built at an extravagant cost, 
when, as I shall show you, the interests of the County have been 
guarded at every point, and the expenditure has been the lowest practi- 
cable sum on almost every item involved. I showed you, gentlemen, 
that $228,000 of this entire cost, more than two-thirds of the entire cost, 
was paid to Mr. Willcutt, or the firm of Willcutt & Son. I have shown 
you that that sum was principally for contract work, and that it 
was done under a competition with the best known and most reputable 
builders in the state. Two-thirds of this entire cost paid to a builder of 
the highest standing, competing with other builders of the highest 
standing, and yet my brother makes this charge! 

The next considerable item of cost was over $.",11,000, paid to Mr. 
Whitcomb, the carpenter, a brother of a member of the late Commission 
on the enlargement of the State House, against whom my brother has 
not suggested any word of blame or censure. And that makes $278,000 
out of a total cost of $338,000 for the construction of the building. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have one word further to submit. This in- 
quiry has been going on now for over a month. My brother has had all 
the resources of the Commonwealth for any reasonable expense that 
might be incurred. It would be a very simple matter for him to rind a 
mason or builder, who, upon examination of that building, would say 
that Mr. Willcutt' s charges were unreasonable. And yet he has called 
nobody here to show that fact; not one man is produced here. He 
charges extravagance in the amount paid to Mr. Willcutt upon these 
several contracts, and for these extras, and he charges it without one 
particle of testimony to support it ; not a single man called to sustain 
that charge. Was there extravagance in connection with Mr. Whit- 



04 

comb's contract? Why not call some carpenter to examine that work 
and say so ? My brother's position as a lawyer is an eminent one ; I do 
not wish to detract in any way from that. But the assertion of no 
counsel, however eminent, counts for evidence, or is a substitute for 
evidence. He cannot fairly and honestly ask this Committee to con- 
demn this work as extravagance, the work performed by Mr. Willcutt 
and by Mr.Whitcomb, in the face of the fact that it was performed under 
competition, and given to the lowest bidder, and that he does not call a 
single witness to say that there was a dollar of unnecessary expense in- 
volved. In that connection, let me say a word about this much talked 
of matter of Mr. Bate's sub-contract with Mr. Willcutt. Mr. Willcutt's 
contract for the front part of the Court House included not only the 
mason work, but the plumbing, the steam heating and the electric wir- 
ing, and Mr. Willcutt decided to make a sub-contract for that work. 
That was his business and nobody else's. lie had secured the contract 
from the County ; he was the lowest bidder. 

It was not the business of the County to say anything to him as to 
what lie should let out by sub-contract, or with whom he should con- 
tract. But he decided to let out those three jobs by sub-contract, and 
Mr. Bates figured upon that sub-contract. My brother asked Mr. Bate's 
if he was a plumber, or furnished electric wiring or steam heating, and 
he said no. Neither was Mr. Willcutt. When Mr. Willcutt contracted 
to put up that building, he was neither a plumber, a steam heater or an 
electric wirer, a plasterer or a painter. But it is the commonest thing 
in the world for those contracts to lie made with one man, because the 
owner desires the guarantee of a responsible person that the work shall 
be faithfully performed. He wants one man to look to. The County 
Commissioners had Mr. Willcutt to look to ; they had his bond to fall 
back upon. It was of no consequence to them who did the work for 
him, or what sub-contracts were made. Mr. Bates did make a sub- 
contract with Mr. Willcutt for $13,229, which covered the plumbing, the 
steam heating, and the electric wiring; and he himself then contracted 
with William Lurali & Company to do the plumbing, and Sanborn to do 
the steam heating, and with Fuller to do the electric wiring. And he 
testified, under oath, before you, that his entire profit on the whold con- 
tract was $500. Now, my brother will say that he does not believe that. 
Assuming that he does not, how does he prove an affirmative proposi- 
tion by saying to this Committee that he does n >t believe t lie evidence 
of a person whom he calls as a witness. 

Again, on this point of extravagance, the next largest item of the 
expense was $20,227.21 paid to Franklin. Is my brother going to say 
there was any extravagance there '.' Why, the only question raised 
about Franklin is this, that Mr. Tudor, the experienced and competent 
expert upon the ventilation and heating of the building, condemned a 
portion of Mr. Franklin's work and required it to be taken out. that al- 
lowance had to be made bv Mr. Franklin on his contract for that work ; 



65 

and that, instead of it, was substituted the new work done by Bates. 
Certainly no extravagance so far as Franklin was concerned. 

And now, Mr. Chairman, you have covered the three items which 
take the most of the money, $228,000, $50,000, $20,000. What then re- 
mains ? I may add, perhaps, in passing, because I will dispose of it 
here, that my brother made a considerable complaint and will perhaps 
say considerable about the cost of the new work performed by Mr. Bates. 
Mr. Bates did that work for $1,118; that is to say, he obtained a fan from 
the Sturtevant Company, and he put in his own skilled mechanics, and 
that was a considerable part of the work ; and he charged $1,118 for it. 
Part of that item was paid by the allowance from Mr. Franklin's con- 
tract. Hamilton A. Hill, a competent expert, says that a fair price for 
the work, without allowing anything for profit, was $895. Mr. Webber, 
called as an expert by the prosecution, says (Vol. 0, p. 1022) the fair 
price was $1,022 for that work. In other words, all the talk of extrava- 
gance about that item of the fan— and the Committee will remember 
how many times the changes have been rung on that fan, amounts to a 
difference between their expert and our contractor of less than $100. 

The next largest item about which complaint is made is the bill of 
Wait & Cutter, for architects' services. They were paid $17,000.40. It is 
admitted that that amount is less than five per cent, on the entire work. 
It is admitted that nobody was employed as inspector on the building, 
and it is common knowledge, as testified to by the architects, that in the 
construction of large buildings now-a-days, it is usual and proper to em- 
ploy an inspector, who has, in addition to the architect's commission, a 
regular sum for constantly watching the building. Witli some personal 
experience myself in the construction of large buildings, and with the 
general knowledge which everybody has about buildings, I undertake to 
say that no building of the size and importance of this Court House 
would be constructed in Suffolk County to-day. whether by the City, or 
the State, or individuals, where there would not be paid, in addition to 
the architect's commission of five per cent., the sum of two, three, or 
four thousand dollars a year for the services of a competent man to be 
present on the work all the time, and watch every stone which was put 
into it, and every piece of work which was done by the mechanics. 

Now, in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, it is common knowledge 
that an architect is entitled to be paid ten per cent, commission for his 
services in connection with the furnishing of buildings. And you will 
find that in our best buildings, public or private, where an architect is 
called upon to exercise his ekill and taste and give his time in the selec- 
tion of papers, of carpets, or furniture, his charge is ten per cent, and 
not five per cent. So that in this particular case the amount which was 
charged by these architects was the lowest charge which could be made 
on the basis of a commission. 

What is the whole point made about this payment? Why, Mr. 
Chairman, I should lie thoroughly ashamed of Norfolk County if it 



06 



i justify the position thai has been taken in this case, thai the 
archib < ts should have been held down to the written contract made in 
January, 1S02, to do this work for $:>300. I should lie ashamed of Nor- 
folk County if it had set up any such defence to the claim of the archi- 
tects. There are some obligations that are more binding' than written 
contra< ts, and t his if one of them. These architects were asked to make 
some -preliminary sketches at a time when the whole expenditure in- 
volved was $ 05, 000 to $75,000; and the} were asked how much their 
charge would be. They said on the basis of $05,000 live per cent, com- 
nussion would be •i :!-!50, and that as thai was a comparatively small job, 
they ! bought t hey ought to be paid something for expenses in addition. 
and it was agreed that $50 should be added ; and a contract was then 
and there drawn, by which they bound themselves to do this work for 
i-y, :.oo. Now, gentlemen, instead of this being a work which involved 
only $05,000 to $75,0O0,as first contemplated, it involved work costing for 
the buiiding alone $3:58,000, for the work in connection with the jail $!KX'0 
more, and for the furnishing, $44, (too more, a total of over $:3!>0.000. And 
the claim is that the Noil oik County Commissioners should have insisted 
on the letter of that contract when the architects asked to be paid for 
their more than three years of work, and plans which Mr. Cutter told 
you would in bulk equal the whole space of the cubic contents involved 
in the height of that table, and should have insisted that the} should 
have been paid stricth according to their contract. 

Wl at did these ( 'ommissioners do about that '.' They said, here is a 
question. Here is a written contract. Here, on the other hand, is our 
knowledge of the fact that the conditions have entirely changed since 
that contract was made. What shall we do :> The} did not act without 
consideration. The} went to two different counsel and got two written 
Opinions on the subject as to their obligation ; and those opinions have 
been lead in evidence before this Committee. Both counsel, each 
writing independently of the other, gave their written opinions to tin 
I i of County Commissioners that the contract in writing was not 
binding or conclusive; that the Norfolk County Commissioners were 
bound to pay, and the architects were entitled to receive, a reasonable 
compensation for their services. And it is admitted that the commis- 
sion paid was reasonable. 

; e.ctravuganei on the luirt of l hi Commissioner* to [wnj >/< 

dniavij < sion, '//< lowest possible commission, for work of I hat hind .' 

I again that if Norfolk County, rich and prosperous and honorable 
as it is, could have been guilt} of the meanness as well as the la-each i if 
legal obligation in failing to meet a claim of the architects to be paid 
for three and a half years of service mi this building, the regular and 
iii-dinar. compensation, because of that written contract, it would sink 
low in iteem and in the esteem of every reputable citizen ol 

( 'oimnoiiwealth. 

Then it is claimed that there was extravagance in respect to the 
,l pi ruiedb} Keeler »x Co. Now, Mr. Chairman. I call your 



67 

tion one moment to that, because there has been more said about that, 
publicly and privately, than about any other work done in this case. And 
I want every man who hears me to feel that I state the facts exactly as 
they are, and to say after they are stated that there; isn't any answer to 
the proposition that that work was all economically, reasonably and 
honestly done, and that there was no justification for this charge. 

The whole amount paid Keeler & Co. was paid to cover all the fur- 
niture that they put in, and all the permanent fixtures, and it amounted 
to $44,270 29. It included two items, one of $575, for polishing- floors, 
and the other of $245 for the furniture in the safe, making a total of 
$820, which, for purposes of comparison with the experts, I will deduct 
from the total amount paid, leaving $43,450.29 as the total expenditure 
on the furniture and furnishing. The carting is also included in this 
amount, and should be deducted. Now, Mr. Chairman, recollect that 
from the beginning to the end of Mr. Buzzell's examination, attempts 
were made to throw discredit upon him and to impute some fraud or 
misconduct on the part of Keeler & Co. Bear in mind again that they 
are a firm which rank with A. H. Davenport & Co., Irving & Casson 
and Doe & Hunnewell, and that they competed with those firms for the 
original contract, and were the lowest bidders. Bear in mind the further 
fact that every article of furniture and furnishing is stated specifically 
in the bills as they are upon the records of the County Commissioners, 
that the charge for every article is there stated, and that my brother 
lias had the opportunity to send, and has sent, persons to the Dedham 
Court House who have counted every table and every chair, and for 
aught I know every cushion and every smaller or larger tiling that is 
there. Moreover, he has had an opportunity to call experts without 
number to value those articles, and we have furnished letters to persons 
whom they desired to send there that every facility might be given them 
in their investigation. And I want to say to start with that he has not 
been able to find a furniture dealer in Boston or anywhere else who is 
willing to come here and say that any item upon this schedule, or that 
the aggregate of this amount paid, was not true and honest and reason- 
able, not one. If my brother intends to claim that there is anything 
about this charge of Keeler & Co. that is unreasonable, I have to say that 
he lias had every opportunity to produce evidence, and he /ins not pro- 
duced a particle. My brother does no! try cases ordinarily in that way. 
He dots im' comt in and make charges, and then., failing to support flu m by 
< r'ah nee, clost by arguing upon hisown charge that tin charge is supporU d. 

But what have we done? We on our part undertook to have these 
articles examined and valued. We called Mr. Beckford, who is in the 
employ of Doe & Hunnewell, one of the competitors of Keeler & Co., 
with no interest, certainly, to magnify the excellence of Keeler's work, 
or to overstate the reasonable cost of it Mr. Beckford went out there 
and examined the furniture and furnishings in two afternoons. He was 
not able in that time, as he stated, to value each article in detail, but he 
used his experience and judgment as a furniture man in the examination 



lis 

(it the property that was there, and he put upon the whole an estimate 
of $4(5,712. My brothers think it was very funny that he put his esti- 
mate in that form. Where is their estimate of the value of this prop- 
erty ? Where is their expert to prove how much this property is worth? 
They ask you to brand these commissioners with extravagance about 
this work, and they do not produce a man who has been out thereto 
examine it and to say what it is worth. On the contrary, I have a right 
to charge, and I do charge, that they have failed to get a man who was 
willing io put a valuation on that property less than what Iveeler & 
Co. charged for it. 

Then you have Mr. Casson, of the firm of Irving & Casson, one of 
the best known and most reputable dealers in this city, one of the com- 
petitors of this work, who went out there and examined this work after 
it was performed, and he testifies that in his opinion the whole amount 
of that work was worth $42,501. That is his estimate in detail as against 
an actual charge of S43.450.29, which charge included, as I am informed, 
some small items which were not considered by Mr. Casson. Talk about 
extravagance in this work, when you have a competitor, and a man of 
experience like .Mr. Casson, coming m and giving that estimate! Here 
is l he most vulnerable point in my brother's case. Here is the one tiling 
against which he has levelled his batteries from beginning to end. 
Keeler&Co! Mr. Buzzell! Mr. Kuzzell's books! And so on. He has 
tried to lead you away from the main point under consideration. The 
main point is not Keeler A: Co.'s books, or their business, or their gen- 
eral appearance here. The main question is,— Did they furnish that fur- 
niture for the Court House? Are their prices reasonable, or are they 
extravagant! And that issue my brother has not met, and he cannot 
meet it except to admit he has failed. 

There is nothing in this case, Mr. Chairman, at once so surprising 
and so unreasonable as to persist in claiming anything extravagant in 
rhe cost of this furniture put in by Keeler & ( !o., when you have the es- 
timate by Doe <.V. Hunnewell. and Irving & Casson, that the prices were 
reasonable, and when they cannot find a man who knows anything 
about it to say that they were unreasonable. My brother has spent a 
lot of time talking about the cost id' pigeon-holes, and about the com 
parative cost of bookcases. lie asked one witness whether if one hook- 
case of a certain size cost one sum, it didn't seem unreasonable that 
another bookcase of another size should cost a. different sum. That is 
like the other question he put earh in the hearing, that if one school- 
house could be iiuilt lor a certain sum, what would it cost to build this 
Co i hi tlousc? Xo sense < f i report ion, no relation of question to answer, 
no connect ion between the charge and the proof ! Merely misleading, 
confusing inquiries and statements, trying to get you to try Keeler & 
Co. on their private affairs instead of meeting the issue which he has 
evoked of whether or not Keeler cv. Co. charged a reasonable price for 
their u or! . 

Then lake Mr. EloHings, My brother has not only charged the Com- 



(39 

missioners with extravagance, but he has charged Mr. Rollings with 
fraud— one of the most, I dislike to use offensive language, but I will 
say one of the most unfounded of all the unfounded charges in this case. 
Here is Mr. Hollings, known to every man within the sound of my 
voice as one of the leading business men of the city of Boston ; a man 
who has done more than any other concern in this city in the way of 
furnishing large public buildings and private buildings with gas and 
electric fixtures ; a man everywhere respected, of good standing, whose 
record has never been questioned. And yet my brother in his final 
charge, to which I shall refer again, says this man has been guilty of 
fraud. And this examination lias been pursued down to the point of 
the suggestion that there were too many lamps in one of the rooms, and 
that they might have saved the cost of a globe here and there. If my 
brother is going to testify as to his experience in house building, per- 
haps he will tell the Committee whether he always found it possible to 
know beforehand just where to make the outlets for his gas fixtures and 
electric fixtures, just how many he needs, what kind of burners, and 
where he needs them ; and perhaps he will tell the Committee whether 
or not he has sometimes found his most elaborate fixtures come out be- 
hind a bed-post. The fact is that all those things are liable to bo 
erroneously placed. The fact is that nobody can tell beforehand as to 
just what will be required. The question is not whether these details 
are all just as they should be ; the question is whether in the aggregate 
the entire cost involved here is reasonable or not. 

Mr. Hollings was paid $6693.59. Half of that was paid under a con- 
tract which he obtained in competition with the leading concerns in the 
city, including McKenny & Co. and Shreve, Crump & Low. I shall not 
spend any time over that. My brother has had opportunity to send any 
number of electric men out there, and they would have told you if there 
was anything unreasonable about that charge. 

I come next to Mr. Bate's work at the jail. The total amount of 
that work was $6650, including the cost of the engine, dynamo, and so 
on. Hamilton A. Hill says that work was worth fairly $5720 without 
allowing any profit. Mr. Frye. the chief engineer employed by the 
United States upon its public buildings, gave you his estimate, which I 
do not at this moment recall, but it was substantially the amount of Mr. 
Bates' bills. Mr. Webber, the expert called by the other side, puts it at 
about $4000. But Mr. Webber, I think it was clearly shown, did not in- 
clude in his figures some of the items which entered into the final re- 
sult. But, supposing they have found one man, and he is the only man 
in the United States they have been able to get to testify to a single item 
of this whole work, supposing they have found one man who would ex- 
press his judgment now that work for which $6650 was paid was worth 
only about $4000? You have against that the opinion of two such men 
as Hamilton A. Hill and Mr. Frye that the work was worth substantially 
the amount paid. 



To 

So in regard to the carpets. My brother has succeeded in showing 
that in the case of $1695 worth of carpets bought of Pray & Sons, the 
firm charged the retail price, and he has brought Mr. Randall, one of 
the firm of Pray & Sons, here to say that they charged more than they 
ought to have charged for them. Mr. Morrell and the County Commis- 
sioners are not to be blamed if they have been jewed by one firm in the 
price of a class of goods which they are not acquainted with. Mr 
Morrell is no more acquainted, I will assume for the purposes of this 
case, with the proper price of Turkish rugs, than he is with the value or 
the details of the mechanism of a watch- lie had some carpets to buy 
for the ( 'ourt House, lie went to a man he supposed understood about 
it , who was in the business, and asked him to assist him. That man, 
having an eye for a commission, goes to Pray & Sons, and makes an 
arrangement by which he is to receive tlie whole amount of the profit, 
practically, that is to say, 25 per cent, of the price. And Pray & Sons, 
having in mind the fact that they are to give that liberal commission, 
charge the amount of the retail price. Now, I agree that if my brother 
had bought those carpets he would have bought them for three or four 
hundred dollars less, and to that extent the County has paid more than 
it ought to have paid. And that is the whole extravagance which has 
been proved in this case. It is the only item in the whole case. The 
Commissioners did pay three or four hundred dollars for those carpets 
more than they ought to have paid, and it is the only item upon which 
the proof is full. 

In regard to Mr. Haberstroh, there is no claim that his price was 
excessive. 

In regard to the small bills id' Mr. Hates, if you will take tin- trouble, 
as 1 think you will in fairness, to compare the estimates of Mr. Hill 
and of Mr. Frye and of Mr. Webber, with those of Mr. Bates, you will 
find that the differences are very slight. For instance, I have right be- 
fore me the price of Mr. Bates for the dynamo, heater, Knowles pump, 
piping, magneto, etc., and it is $1151. Mr. Hill estimated the price at 
$1150, and Mr. Webber put it at $1000. That is all the difference there 
is between them on that. On the engine, heater, piping, fan, and so on. 
at the jail, Mr. Bates 1 price was $1242. Mr. Webber himself puts 
the estimate at $1142. See what trilling differences, gentlemen, you come 
down to, that all that has been shown in the way of extravagance is at 
the outside a difference of three or four or live hundred dollars on some 
of these little items involved in these miscellaneous purchases and pay- 
ments. 

Finally on this matter of extravagant payment there was an intima- 
tion that the Commissioners had been extravagant in their use of the 
old furniture. My brother started out with the idea, apparently, that 
the Commissioners had furnished their houses with the old furniture 
from the Court llou.se. or that they had given it away in some reckless 
manner. What is the fact about it? First, the Davenport furniture, 



71 

which my In-other followed up with such detective skill, is all there in* 
the Court House. The Committee cannot fail to recollect the blank 
look with which my brother met the statement of Mr. Daniells that it 
was all there. Incredulous to the last, my brother was very slow to give 
it up, and yet we haven't heard a word about that Davenport furniture 
since we were told it was all there in the Court House. Every dollar's 
worth of furniture which has gone out of the Court House has gone out 
under the supervision of Mr, Daniells, who has been the custodian of 
that building for 17 years. The proceeds of every piece which has been 
sold have been turned into the County, and appear upon the records of 
the County Treasurer. The furniture has been used to furnish the 
Urookline Police Court room, in which my brother never practises, but 
it would be worth his while to go there once to see how handsome it has 
been made by this old furniture from the Dedham Court House. The 
Quincy District Court has been furnished partly from the Dedham 
Court House, and the Stoughton District Court has been practically fur- 
nished altogether by the old furniture from the Dedham Court House. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, i have left myself a few minutes only to con- 
sider the second branch of the case, which, however, can be discussed 
very briefly because there is so little of it. r have said that this inquiry 
involves a charge of fraud, — a charge so gross tha« the charge itself 
answers the proposition. Nobody is going to believe the charge when 
it involves everybody concerned in the construction of the building. 
When my brother says that Wait & Cutter, and Willcutt, and Hates, 
and Sanborn, and Keeler, and Rollings, and Pray, have all been guilty 
of fraud, and the Commissioners have been colluding with them or re- 
ceiving commissions from them, we all know that there is nothing in 
the charge. It does not need any argument, it does not need any evi- 
dence ; you know it is not true. 

My brother has had access to almost every private account. He has 
looked over all the letters of Mr. Wait and of Mr. Cutter, he has had 
their private books covering years, and what is the result ? He fastened 
on Ah-. Wait one check for $4000, and intimated by his questions and 
his manner that th?t #4000 had been paid to the Norfolk County Com- 
missioners. Mr. Wait said that it was very mortifying to him to have 
his private matters exposed, but that so long as the question had been 
asked, he would repel the suggestion by telling the truth ; and he told 
you in regard to every dollar of that money, what it was drawn for, and 
where it was deposited. And if his statement was not true, the treas- 
urers of the different savings banks in which the deposits were made 
would have been here to disprove it. Mr. Cutter's private books of ac- 
count were in the hands of brother Storey for three or four days, and no 
suggestion is made that Mr. Cutter paid out a dollar improperly. 

Was it fair, then, Mr. Chairman, in the face of that evidence, for- 
my brother to say he charged Wait & Cutter with fraud in relation tO' 
the County Commissioners. 

Then in regard to Mr. Dates. What is the charge against Mr. Dates'?- 



i -1 

first, that he lives in Hyde Park. Whenever my brother has been at a 
loss for anything to charge or intimate against a witness, he asked him 
if lie didn't live in Hyde Park. Early in this hearing living in Wakefield 
was n reprehensible and criminal offence; one or two witnesses were 
asked if they didn't live in Wakefield. Now, Mr. Dates lives in Hyde 
Park, and Mr. Morrell lives in Hyde Park, and Mr. Hamilton A. Hill 
lives in Hyde Park; and because they all live in the same town therefore 
they have conspired to cheat the County of Norfolk. That is the argu- 
ment. Mr. Pates is a large manufacturer. He carries on an important 
work. The Pates Machine Company is one of the best known and most 
reputable establishments in the state. It has furnished labor and mate- 
rials for Norfolk County for years before Mr. Morrell was a member of 
the Board, and while Mr. Wiggin was Chairman. Mr. Franklin, himself, 
bought the engine he put in under his contract with the County Com- 
missioners oi the Pates Machine Company. Mr. Pates stands as well as 
any other man. We have nothing to do with Mr. Pates' reasons for not 
wanting to show his books or to be examined about his profits. Some 
men are ven pari icular about these things. Some men like to hand over 
all their private accounts and checks to other people to examine. My 
brother Storey would like nothing better than to hand over all the 
checks i.i his o;ii<v, and all his hooks and papers, and correspondence for 
the last live years, to this Committee, to be read over and to be pub- 
lished in the Poston papers. Put some people don't like it, and Mr. 
Pates is one ol them, and Mr. Pates fought very hard for what he 
thought to '■ ;■ his personal rights. The County Commissioners were not 
responsible for that. They had no control over Mr. Pates. There is no 
fraud involved because he did that. 

Mr. Pates has testified under his oath that he never paid Mr. Morrell 
me single cent, directly or indirectly, and there is not a particle of evi- 
dence to show that Mr. .Morrell, or any other Commissioners, ever re- 
ceived any benefit directly or indirectly from him Mr. Pates' books 
were burned ai the factory, and that is thought lobe suspicious. Well, 
gentlemen, tl •■ manufacturing establishments of honest men burn up as 
well as those of dishonest men. Ten thousand dollars worth of his 
stock and materials were burned up at the same time that his books 
were burned, and there is no inference to be drawn against Mr. Pates 
from thai. Why, Mr. Chairman, if I may allude for a single moment 
again to the illustration, the standard of Mr. Wiggin and Mr. Field, 
suppose that my brother had against Mr. Pates and Mr. Morrell such 
evidence as lie has against Mr. Wiggin and Mr. Field, what use he would 
make of it in his argument to the Committee! There is nothing, then, 
against Mr. Pates, and there is no evidence upon which this Committee 
could find any charge of fraud or conspiracy proved. 

Again, in reference to Keeler iV Co., to show my brother's zeal, not 
improper, 1 don't wish to be understood as criticising in any way my 
brother's conduct, except this, that having been imbued with this notion 
of fraud he has not been able to get it out of his mind, and it has col- 



73 

ored the whole course of his argument and discussion and examination 
of witnesses,) my brother sees erasures in everything, his eye was full 
of them. He took up a book of Keeler & Co.'s accounts and coolly asked 
Mr. Buzzell if the whole of that page hadn't been erased by some chem- 
ical process, and all the items on the entire page written over the 
erasure. And you will remember the manner in which he held it up, 
what I may call his "erasure manner," holding it up to the gaze of the 
committee, and asking Mr. Buzzell if the whole of thai page hadn't been 
erased by chemicals. Well, gentlemen, you saw how absurd it was. It 
was just as preposterous an intimation as the charge against all these 
parties concerned is preposterous. And so again, when I called his at- 
tention to the fact that right on the very book he was examining Mr. 
Buzzell upon, appeared the credits for Mr. Morrell's payments, and there 
they were, my friend Storey turned to Mr. Buzzell with a look and in a 
manner that would seem to annihilate him, and asked him whether this 
all hadn't been written in during the recess, since his former testimony 
in the case. Think of that insinuation, Mr. Chairman, to a respectable 
business man producing his book here and showing you the payments— 
my brother asking him whether he hadn't made all those entries during 
the recess. I ask this Committee when they come to deal with this case, 
in fairness and justice to bear in mind all these charges and intimations. 

finally, in regard to Mr. Willcutt, Mr. Chairman, what evidence is 
there that Mr. Willcutt, out of the whole $226,000 he received, ever paid 
one cent to Mr. Morrell, or any member of this Board ? He swears lie 
never did. and the Commissioners swear they never received anything. 

This completes the review which I have been able to make in the 
time allowed me. and I thank the Committee for giving my remarks a 
careful and patient consideration. I want, in closing, to say that as this 
inquiry involved something more serious than a question of dollars and 
cents, to wit, the reputation of men, and of prominent men, and of men 
who, up to the moment of this inquiry, have stood well and had a right 
to stand well, in the estimation of their families and of their friends, and 
of the public, I trust this committee in dealing with their acts will deal 
with them in a judicial spirit and with absolute impartiality. 

It is too common a thing to make insinuations against the honesty 
of public men. There is nothing upon which, I regret to say, the public 
mind feeds so readily as it does on any suggestion thrown out against a 
public official. A newspaper will print in lines ten times as large the 
record of a man's fraud as it will the record of a man's good deed. If a 
man dies in Suffolk County and leaves a million dollars to a charitable 
institution, money which has been the result of his acquirement and 
hard work through life, it will be dismissed in a short paragraph ; while 
the suggestion of suspicion that a man has been guilty of fraud, if he is 
an olticial, will be paraded with large head-lines, and will fill a consider- 
able part of the columns of the paper. Now, here, Mr. Chairman, this 
poison has done its work. These charges have gone out, they have been 
repeated, they have done incalculable harm. As long as these men live 



7 1 

they are going to suffer from the mere intimation that they have been 
guilty of wrong doing. Their families have had to suffer from these 
charges which have been thrown out. These words, so reckless as I 
think they are and claim they are, have hurt the feelings of many men. 
I >o you think that these men have not families and friends, these Com- 
missioners, these architects, these contractors, these merchants, these 
mechanics, and that they do not suffer as much as you would if it was 
intimated in the newspapers that you had been paid a bill twice, or that 
you had charged an exorbitant sum, or that you had given a bribe, or 
thai you had received a bribe? 

I chum that this review shows that these charges are absolutely 
without foundation. I beg you not to imitate the example of the city 
government of a neighboring city winch, having such matters before it, 
failed to do justice in his lifetime to a worthy man charged with fraud, 
so that that man died by his own hand by reason of the shame and grief 
and mortification brought upon him by unjust charges, but that you will 
be ready and prompt, here and now, not to visit these men with cen- 
sure, but to say that they have done well, that thej have earned the 
gratitude of the County, and that t he only rebuke to be administered at 
your hands, should be to thosewho have made these groundless accusa- 
tions. 



REPORT OF W. IT. HERRICK. 



SCHEDULE A. 



COST OF COURT HOUSE FOR NORFOLK COUNTY, .MASS. 
Under Contracts and Miscellaneous Expenses, 

First Contract, dated April 28, 1892, made with 

Lyman D. Willcutt $8,776 00 

Extras under this contract : 

Cesspools 782 00 

Foundations 778 72 

$10,331 72 

Second Contract, dated July 19, 1892, made with 

Lyman 1 >. Willcutt $79,250 00 

Extras under this contract 2,806 47 

$82,056 47 

Third Contract, dated July 25, 1893, made with 

B. 1). Whitcomb & Co $47,811 00 

Extras under this contract 2,496 29 

. $50,307 20 

Fourth Contract, dated July 25, 1S93, made with 

Albert B. Franklin $18,987 00 

Extras under this contract 1,240 21 

$20,227 21 

Fifth Contract, dated February 6, 1894, made with 

Lyman 1). Willcutt & Son $105,292 00 

Extras under this contract 31,056 7<> 

_ $136,348 70 

Sixth Contract, dated January 23, 1894, made with 

Keeler & Co $12,980 00 

Extras under this contract 31,290 29 

$44,270 29 

Seventh Contract, dated February 20, 1804, made 

with 11. Hollings & Co $3,242 20 

Extras on contract, 193 50 

" front of building 3,258 09 

$G : 693 59 

Eighth Contract, dated February 19, 1895, made 

with L. Haberstroh & Co $3,000 00 

Extras under this contract 35 00 

$3,035 00 

Miscellaneous Expenses 12,648 25 

Wait & Cutter, Architects 17,909 40 

Total cost of Court House $383,827 92 

To show the total expenditure, we add this amount, which 

is classed as doubtful, as being part of cost of Building 0,888 17 

$393,710 09 



76 



April 24, 1S02. 

Contract foe Excavating and Foundation of Rear Portion 
of Court House. 

Lyman D. Willcutt, Contractor. 

( First Contract, i 

Contract, $8,776 00 

Extras: Ruilding Cesspools, as per agreement, .. . 782 00 
Building new foundation under side walls 

of rear of old building 773 72 

— $10,331 72 

Credit. 
I >y cash payments : 

July 2(5. 1802 $5,000 00 

November 4, 1802 2,000 00 

December 27, 180:: 1,750 oo 

.Inly .".I. 1894 1,581 72 



Contract foi: Constructing Rkai: Portion of the Court FIouse. 
Lyman D. Willcutt & Sou, Contractors. 

Second Contract, i 

Contract $70,250 00 

Extras o,800 -17 

$S2,056 17 

< redited by cash : 

\o\cnilicr 7, 1S02 $ 4,000 00 

December 15, 1892, 15,000 no 

February 21, 1S03 10,000 00 

Api'il 4, 1803 5,0nn oo 

July 11, ISO::, [0,500 00 

September 5, 1S03, 5,000 00 

September 5, 1803, s,000 oo 

( )ctober 17. 1803, 4,000 oo 

December 20, 1S03, 4,500 00 

January 30, 1804 12,000 00 

April 17, 1S04, 3,000 00 

July 31, 1894 1,056 17 

$82,05(1 47 



77 

July 25th, 1893. 

Contract for Finishing the Interior Rear Portion of the 
Court House. 

B. D. Whitcomb & Co., Contractors. 

(Third Contract.) 

Contract $47,81 1 00 

Extras 2,49(3 29 

* 50, 307 29 

Credit. 
By cash: 

February 27, 1894 $8,500 00 

March 20, 1894 13,500 00 

May 1, 1894 0,000 00 

July 10, 1804 12,000 00 

Mav 7, 1895 7,307 20 

$50,307 29 



Contract for Heating, Pi/umbing, Electric Wiring for the 
Rear Portion of the Court House. 

A. B. Franklin, Contractor. 
(Fourth Contract.) 

Contract $18,987 00 

Extras 1,540 57 

$20,536 57 

Credit. 
By cash : 

October 17, 1893 $3,500 00 

November 14, 1803 2,500 00 

December 27, 1893 2,000 00 

March G, 1894 6,500 00 

October 31, 1S04 4,000 00 

November 20, 1894 1,727 21 



$20,227 21 



Settled for this sum. 



78 



Februarj 6th, ism. 

contract koi! tiik construction am) interior finish complete 
of tiik Front Portion of tup: Court Hoi se. 

Lyman I». Willcutt & Son, Contractors. 
(Fifth Contract.) 

Contract $105,292 00 

Extras 31,056 70 

$136,348 TO 

Credit. 
I5y cash : 

June 12, 180-1 $13,500 00 

July 10, 1894 12,000 00 

Jul} 31, IS94 4,500 00 

( )ctober 2, 1894 20,000 00 

November 20, ism 12,000 00 

December 4, 1894 12.072 95 

February 5, 1895 15,000 00 

April 9, 1895 18,000 00 

July 2, 1895 2,986 50 

July Hi, 1895 12,000 00 

.Inly 16, 1895 1,000 00 

January 1, ism; 12,689 25 

$130,348 « (l 



Contra* t for the Furniti i;i. of the C01 rt Hoi se. 

Keeler & < 'o., ( lontracl ors. 

(Sixth Contract. 1 

Contract $12,9S0 00 

Extras 31.290 29 

■ $44,270 29 

Credit. 
By cash. 

April 4, 1894 $3,000 00 

April 17, 1894 2,:.oo 00 

May 1, 1894 2,000 00 

July 31, 1894 652 50 

October 2, ism 6,000 00 

1 >ecember 1. 1894 2,000 00 

March 5, 1895 ($,000 00 

March 19, 1895 8,000 00 

April 23, 1895 5,000 00 

July 9, 1895 6,500 00 

October 22, 1895 2,000 00 

January 1, 1896 617 79 

$44,270 29 



79 



February 20th, 1804. 

Contract for Furnishing Gas and Electric Fixtures for 

Rear Portion of the Court House; also 

for the Front Portion. 

R. Hollings & Co., Contractors. 

( Seventh Contract. 

Contract, date February 20, 1894, $3,242 00 

Extras, 193 50 

3.25S 09 

$6,693 59 

Payments under R. Hollings & Co. Contract. 
Credited by cash : 

April 15, 1804, $ 500 00 

May 1(5, 1804, 800 00 

October L6, 1894 1,000 00 

January 10, L895 1,000 00 

May 21, 1805, 2,000 00 

January 21, 1800 1,393 59 

$6,693 59 



Contract for Frescoing the Court House. 
L. Haberstroh & Son, Contractors. 

I Eighth Contract . 

Contract, $3,000 00 

Extras, 35 00 

$3,035 <in 

Credited by cash : 

May (i, LS95 42,000 00 

May 21, 1895 002 71 

May 21, 1805, 342 29 

$3,035 00 



Miscellaneous. 



Minis Paid to Various Firms and Individuals. 

1893. 

May 9: Frederick Tudor, plans for heating and ventilating, $ 200 00 
Oct. 10: H. L. Willard, lightning rods, 225 00 



so 



Jan. 


o 


Jan. 


18 


Apri 


in 


Ma\ 


;; 


May 


22 


June 


30 


July 


:» 


July 


12 


July 


:;i 


Sept. 


in 


Sept. 


27 


Oct. 


1 


Oct. 


'.i 


Oct. 


1(5 


Nov. 


13 


1 )ec. 


l 


Dec. 


2-1 


Dec. 


:;i 



Feb. 


:_'•; 


May 


IT 


May 


IT 


May 


■_'l 


May 


21 


June 


1 1 


June 


12 


June 


1 


June 


2. ' 


July 


1 1 


July 


Mi 


Sept. 


3 



18(14. 

Frederick Tudor,plans for heating and ventilating, 

< reorge II. Peare, laying drains 

John II. Fray, Sons & Co., rugs, mats and rubber 

carpets, 

Abram French Company, crockery, 

Thomas Corrigan, grading and removing safe, 

Thomas Corrigan, stoning and digging well, 

Frederick Tudor, plans for heating and ventilating 

.John II. Fray, Sons & Co., rubber carpet, 

Boston Plate and Window Glass Co., glass for 

lights, 

John II. Fray. Sons & Co., rugs, 

Godfrey Electric Co., electric wiring 

Frederick Tudor,plans for heating and ventilating, 

C. A. W. Crosby & Son, clock 

Godfrey Electric Co., telephone work, 

Godfrey Electric Co., electric construction and 

telephone work, 

Thomas Corrigan, grading, 

Boston Lightning Rod Co., lightning rods, 

Mass. Electric Engineering Co., inspection and 

test, 

18!!.-). 

II. X. Fates Machine Co., re-arranging heating 
apparatus, 

A. A. Sanborn, water heater, 

F. <'. Morris Safe Co., safe for Probate Office 

Abram French Co., umbrella, stands, 

Slncve, Crump *S: Low Co., clock face, 

II. II. Cotton & Co., rugs, etc 

Frederic Endicott, surveying for curbing and 
grading, 

Abram French < '<>., umbrella, stands, 

Frederick Tudor,plans for heating and ventilating, 

Thomas Corrigan, grading grounds, 

II. II. Cotton & Co., rugs, 

Thomas Corrigan, grading grounds 

William Hall iV Co., bronze and marble work 



$200 00 


362 


no 


1,095 


00 


47 


50 


200 00 


227 


00 


_"_'."> 


00 


1 1.". 


50 


1(37 


00 


100 


OO 


150 


oo 


100 


00 


100 oo 


200 


01, 


TTI 


31 


197 


00 


11' > 


00 



120 00 



1,1 IS 


37 


7S5 


oo 


1 :>( i 


oo 


20 


01 


21 H 1 


00 


1,042 


93 


IT 


To 


21 


00 


200 00 


2,2S9 


25 


20 


25 


590 


10 


183 


1)0 



$12,(J4S 25 



81 

Schedule D. 

Total Architects' Orders, Schedule B $358,023 88 

Payments on Architects' Orders, Schedule C 7,894 64 

Wait & Cutter, Architects, Schedule E 17,909 40 

$383,827 92 



Total Payments. 



Schedule E. 

Total Payments, including 
Payments to Wait & Cutter, Architects. 



1892, 


$20,000 00 


1892, 


$20,000 00 




1893, 


57,17.") 00 


" 


2,275 00 


Wait & Cutter 


1894, 


171,151 it; 


1893, 


57,175 00 




1895, 


90, S91 73 


" 


000 00 


.. st 


1896, 


14,70() 63 


1894, 


171,151 10 




Wait & Cutter, 


17,900 40 


" 


12,134 40 


.. 







1895, 


96,891 73 






$388,827 92 


" 


3,500 00 


a a 






1896, 


14,700 63 






$383, S27 92 





Jan. 


15, 


" 


15. 


Feh. 


.), 


" 


20, 


Mch. 


5, 


April 


!), 


" 


23, 


May 


0, 


•' 


17, 


" 


17, 


" 


21, 


" 


21, 


" 


21, 


" 


21, 


" 


21, 


June 


4, 



Schedule F. 

Payments from January 1, 1895, to June 5, L895. 

U. X. Bates Machine Co., $1,118 37 

R. Rollings & Co., 1,00 ) 00 

Lyman I). Willcutt & Son, 15,000 00 

A. A. Sanborn, 785 00 

Keeler & Co., 6,000 00 

•• S,000 )0 

Lyman I). Willcutt & Son, 18,000 00 

Keeler & Co., 5,00 I 00 

Wait & ( utter 2,00 I 00 

L. Ilaberstroh & Son, 2,000 00 

15. I). Whitcomb & Co 7,307 A) 

E. C. Morris Safe Co. 150 00 

Abram French Co., 20 04 

L. Haberstron & Son, 692 71 

" 342 29 

Shreve, Crump & Low Co., 200 oO 

H. II. Cotton & Co., 1,042 D3 

R. Hollings & Co., 2,000 00 

Frederick Tudor 200 00 



$70,85? i33 



1 ineiits fro une 5, 1805, to January 1, IS9<>. 

Juik II, Frederick Endieott $47 70 

12, Abram French Co. 21 on 

" 25, Thomas Corneal 2,2S9 25 

Jul} 2, Lyman D. Willcutt &■ Son, 2,980 50 

"' 9, Keeler & < o., 0,500 00 

" ll, H. II. Cotton & C< 20 25 

" 10, Thomas Corrigan •"''• || ' 10 

'• io, Lyman I). Willcutt & Son 13,000 00 

Sept. :;, William Hall & 183 00 

Oct. 22, Wait & Cutter, 1,500 00 

Oct. 22, Keeler <S: Co., 2,000 00 

Dec. 24, Loston Lightning Rod Co 275 00 

" 31, Mass. Eleetrii Engineering Co 120 00 

$29,533 10 

Total )>a\ me ' for 1895, $70,85S 03 

29,533 10 

$100,391 73 

Sfln tilth II. 

Statement of Balances and Appropriations Available for Defraying 

( st of Court House. 

1892. 

Jan. 1 : Cash kdance, $20,173 35 

I nat< s to ! -'^ 

Additi ins to Court House, 35,000 00 

Repairs 5,000 00 

$00,173 35 

: deil $28,275 00 

on other C ountyBuild- 

ings, 1,057 03 

Leaving for general balance, Jan. I, 1893,.. $30,841 32 
1893. 

Jan. I. Cash kdance, $71,202 52 

Estimates for 189;] 
Repairs and FurnishingCountyBnildings, $25,000 00 
Additions to Co rt House 13,000 00 

$109,202 52 
Expended, . .. $57,175 00 

Repairs County '..Mings, 1,003 45 

58,778 45 

Leaving for general balance Jan. 1, 1894,... $50,484 07 



83 



L894. 

•Tan. 1. Cash balance, $47,483 85 

Estimates for 1804: 

Additions to County Buildings, $27,000 00 

Repairs and furnishing 15,000 00 

Loan on 10 years' time, 125,000 00 

$214,433 85 

Expended, $183,285 56 

Repairs 507 54 

457 34 

184,250 44 

Leaving for general balance, Jan. 1, 1805... $30,183 41 

18! 15. 

•Ian. 1, Cash balance, $40,080 05 

Estimates for 1895 : 

Additions to Court House 10,000 00 

Repairs 20,000 00 

* 70, 080 95 

Expended, $100,391 73 

of which there appears in mis- 
cellaneous charges, 6,056 15 

$04,885 58 
General repairs 244 72 

S!U,5S0 30 
Less available funds, 70,080 95 

Deficit, $28,940 85 

Transferred from various accounts, per Schedule G. $24,000 00 
Less deficit 23,940 35 

$59 05 

is; 15. 
Miscellaneous : 

Estimate, $3,000 00 

Transferred as per Schedule ( r, 0,000 00 

$0,000 00 
Expended on Court House, 6,050 15 

$2,943 85 
Due on general miscellaneous account, — 2,862 20 

$81 65 



84 

1895. 
Appropriation by Act passed by Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts, April 27, 1890; repairing, furnishing, and im- 
proving ( 'mint y buildings, $8,500 00 

Expended in 1S9G, $14,700 63 

8,500 00 



Deficit in 1896 $11,200 63 

There was a $75,000.00 loan authorized by the Legislature, March 19, 
1892, that would be funded for a number of years, but no advantage was 
ever taken of it. 

Scheduh 1. 

Cost of Norfolk County Court House and furnishings, $383,827 ,| _ 

Court House $329,31S S2 

Furnishings : 

Keeler & Co., $44,270 29 

R. \ ilings & Co., 



.1. Ii. Pray, Sons A: Co., 
do. 



<IO. ... 

Shreve. ( !rump i\ Low < o. 
II. II. Cotton a <'o 

do. 

Win. Hull & Co 

C. A. W. ( rosby & Sou. . . . 
Abrain French < "o 

do. 

do. 



0,693 


59 






1,095 


00 






115 


50 






[00 


00 






200 


00 






1,042 


93 






•_'() 


-< 






183 


on 






100 


00 






20 


0-1 






21 


00 






■7 


50 


54.509 10 












^:;s::,s^7 


92 



The l'o! lowing accounts may be considered a part of the cost of the 
('our! House, but the labor and materials were put into the Jail 
buildings : 

1894. 
Mch. 22, II. X. Bates lY. Co.. engine, dynamo and fittings,. SO, 050 00 

Aug. :;. L. 1). Willcutt & Son, foundation, US to 

Dee. 18, II. X. Bates Machine Co., alternating dynamo, .. . I,n00 00 

1895. 
Aug. 22. 1! X. Bates Machine Co., two special dynamo 

pulleys 29 50 



$S,()97 90 



Ilespect ! ally submitted, 

WILLIAM II. IIEREICK, 

Public Auditor and Accountant. 
Boston, May 1 1, 1890. 



8.') 



[These items were classed as doubl ful as Her they should be 

char , e cUocostof Court House, the firsl item being located in the Jail, 
and the others being for repairs, etc, sine pi - ion of Court House:] 



II. X. Bates, engine and dynann 

Setli W. Fuller, 

American Screen Co., 

B. W. Neil, repairs, 

B. W. Neil, repairs, 

McRoe & Smyth, repairs, 

Holtzer Cabot Co 

L. D. Willcutt, work at Jail. 
L. D. Willcutt, work at Jail, 
J. H. Boody, painting tins, . 
J. II. Boody, painting tins, 
Kenrick Bro., manufacturing ■ 
Kenrick Bro., . 



n: 



sG.050.00 
190.74 
209.40 
122.10 
57.80 
174.45 
S30.43 
181.25 
418.40 
117.00 
102.58 
340. 34 
433.68 

$9,888. H 



-(<):. S. 



On pa-e 27. in answer to Mr. Morse's question, -What was the 
aggregate estimate made by you upon the work ?" Mr. Robert Cas ion 
answered $42,561. The following items were omitted in Ins estimate. 



Polishing, 
Furniture in safe, 
Carting, 



§575 00 
$245 00 
$020 00 

$1440 00 



On the first page of Report, the ninth line should read "Because a 
portion of the public press deliberately suppressed," etc, the words 'a 
portion of being omitted by the printer. 

MELVILLE P. MORRELL, ) County 

WATTS II- BOWKER, i Commissioners 

THOMAS BLANCHARD, ) 

August 31, 1896. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




